82
WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION PROJECT FINAL REPORT TO PETROCHEMA DUBOVA, SLOVAK REPUBLIC WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER 419 PARK AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1800 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10016 AUGUST 1994

WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER

WASTE MINIMIZATION PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

TO

PETROCHEMA

DUBOVA SLOVAK REPUBLIC

WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER 419 PARK AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 1800

NEW YORK NEW YORK 10016

AUGUST 1994

REPORT DISTRIBUTION

James D Taft Senior Environmental Specialist Bureau for Europe and New Independent States

Patricia Lerner USAID Representative Bratasila Slovak Republic

Patricia A Swahn Acquisitions Manager Document Acquisitions United States Agency for International Development

Antony G Marcil

George Carter

Thomas J McGrath

Romuald Michalek

Bohdan Aftanas

B Bhushan Lodh

Carl M Schwing

Olga Hauskrechtova WEC Coordinator Slovak Republic

Donald M Jackson Radian Corporation

Edward Andrechak Radian Corporation

James E Howes Jr Radian Corporation

Jan Matas General Director Petrochema

V Sepe

File

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I Introduction 1

I1 Executive Sum mary 2 - 4

II1 Radian Corporation Report 5

IV Business Cards of Contacts 6

IINTRODUCTION

Pursuant to the technical assistance for Central and Eastern European countries funded by the United States Agency for International Development the World Environment Center (WEC) conducted a Waste Minimization Demonstration Project (WMDP) at the Petrochema White Oil Plant located in Dubova The participants were

Thomas J McGrath - Vice President WEC

B Bhushan Lodh - Project Manager WEC

Samuel Weiss - WEC Specialist

Edward Andrechak - Radian Corporation Consultant

James E Howes Jr - Radian Corporation Consultant

The purpose of the Waste Minimization Demonstration Project included formation of the Waste Minimization Committee conducting a demonstration session and hands-on training on the sulfur dioxide analyzer optimization of the sulfur dioxide converter and caustic scrubber and collection of san-pling data at the manufacturing facility The Petrochema personnel conducted the Goudron sludge incineration tests and the data were analyzed by the consultant Radian Corporation

This final report issued by Radian Corporation includes the details of the WMDP program and conclusions and recommendations to minimize the sulfur dioxide reduction at the Petrochema White Oil Plant

II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pursuant to the technical assistance program for Central and East Europeancountries funded by the U Agency for International Development the World Environment Center (WE(C) had organized a reconnaissance trip to PetrochemaDubova fiovak Rlepublic a manufacturer of lubricating oils located in the vestern most part of the Slovak Republic during May 9 1993 to May 13 1993

The WEC team and Petrochema management selecte J the White Oil Plant for the waste minimization demonstration project (WMDP) - he consulting engineer andthe volunteer expert identified two WMDP projects namely optimization of sulfur trioxide production and the other neutralization of Goudron sludge to reduce the sulfur dioxide emission thereby complying with the new regulatory permitrequirements The consulting engineer estimated that the regulatory penalty cost savings of $35000 can be achieved from both the WMDPs between the years 1993 - 1998

A project implementation trip to Petrochema was organized from December 1 to December 8 1993 The project team consisted of WEC staff Dr Bhushan Lodh and the consultants Mr Edward Andrechak and Mr James E Howes Jr from Radian Corporation

The following tasks were completed

o The sulfur dioxide analyzer was assembled calibrated and tested

o The sampling probe was installed at the exit duct of the caustic scrubber Tests were conducted at various sulfur feed rates to the sulfur dioxide generator and caustic feed rates to the scrubber The corresponding sulfur dioxide concentration was measured at the exit duct of the scrubber Sulfur dioxide concentration was also measured when caustic scrubber was not in operation

o Demonstration session and hands-on training were provided to Petrochema personnel to operate the sulfur dioxide analyzer The Petrochema training personnel included the varioi is department managerstechnicians and maintenance employees which also constituted the waste minimization committee (WMC) members

o Petrochema staff will conduct the tests as outlined by Radian Corporation to incinerate the Goudron sludge wastes and forward the data to Radian for analysis

2

Based upon the analysis of the test results collected the following are the conclusions and recommendations

1 Sulfur dioxide converter appears to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency resulting in high concentration of unconverted sulfur dioxide entering the caustic scrubber

2 The caustic scrubber efficiency is found to be greater than 90

3 At the existing plant conditions by burning liquid sulfur at the rate of 100 kg per hour and maintaining caustic rate in the scrubber between 60-70 liters per hour the sulfur dioxide concentration in the emission from the scrubber foulnd to be 960 ppmv which complies with the regulatory requirement Petrochema should operate the White Oil Plant at or near the above mentioned conditions This will result in a regulatory penalty cost savings of US $10000 for the period 1993 to 1998

4 It is recommended that Petrochema should change the catalyst in the sulfur dioxide converter which will result in approximately 120 ppmv sulfur dioxide emission from the White Oil Plant The plant will save annually US $10000 in liquid sulfur consumption and US $28000 to $35000 in caustic reduction

The calculated total annual cost savinc fjr the raw materials is more than US $45000 annually

5 Tiie low concentration of sulfur dioxide emission (120 ppmvj from the White Oil Plant due to new catalyst in the converter will enable to preserve the pristine nature of the two national parks in Dubova and a better environment It will also remove the potential obstacle to the tourism industry

6 It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at the exit section of the scrubber tc contain the unabsorbed sulfur trioxide mists

Seven incineration tests were conducted by Petrochema personnel using various mixtures of Goudronx sludge wastewater treatment sludge oily contaminated soil and sewage The data were transmitted to Radian Corporation for analysis and the results are presented in this report

The report recommends to neutralize the Goudron sludge wastes by combining with other alkaline wastes prior to incineration This will achieve the compliance with sulfur dioxide emission limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1154 ppmv) and save Petrochema from the sulfur dioxide emission penalty of approximately 775000

3

Slovak Korunas ($25000)

Please refer to consultant Radian Corporation report Section III

4

III RADIAN CORPORATION REPORT

5

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in the report is the professional opinion of the author and does not represent the official position of the Government of the United States or the World Environment Center

RADIAN CORPORATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO Dr Bhushan Lodh Project Manager World Environment Center

FROM Edward M Andrechak Radian Corporation

DATE 27 July 1994

SUBJECT Petrochema Waste Minimization Demonstration Program For SO2

Emissions Reduction--Final Report

10 INTRODUCTION

This technical memorandum summarizes the findings of our December 1993 visit to the Petrochema Dubova Oil Refinery in the Slovak Republic This was the second visit to Petrochema as part of the World Environment Centers (WEC) Waste Minimization Demonstration Program This memorandum also documents the results of test data collected by Petrochema in March 1994

In our initial visit in May 1993 we identified two separate waste minimization projects for the reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emissions (See the previous technical memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations [Radian 8 June 1993] for more detailed background information) Both projects are associated with the production of white oil The purpose of this second visit and the subsequent testing in March 1994 was to perform test measurements to quantify the projected SO2 emissions reductions and the associated economic savings from the implementation of these two projects

This document is organized by the following sections Section 20 presents a summary of the findings of the December visit and March testing Section 30 discusses the visit and testing logistics Section 40 presents the test program and resalts for optimizing

sulfur trioxide (SO 3) in the White Oil Plant and Section 50 presents the waste minimization program involving the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge Figures and tables referenced in the memorandum are attached Also attached are photographs of some of the

analytical equipment and of the PetrochemaRadian WEC team members (Attachment A) the test data collected during the December 1993 visit (Attachment B) sample calculations for the White Oil Plant optimization (Attachment C) test data collected in March 1994 (Attachment D) and sample calculations collected for Goudron sludge neutralization and incineration (Attachment E)

20 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

During our eight-day testing and training visit to the Petrochema Refinery in December 1993 the following was accomplished or determined

1 -7

RADIAN CORPORATION

A new S02 analyzer was installed in both the White Oil Plant and at Incinerator No 2 The analyzer worked successfully and provided accurate test data primarily for the optimization of S03 production in the White Oil Plant

Plant test data were collected in the White Oil Plant for both the

optimization of the SO 2 catalytic converter and the caustic scrubber

From our test results the catalyst in the converter appeared to be

deactivated achieving less than 70 conversion At the same time the

caustic scrubber appeared to be operating well achieving greater than

90 SO2 removal efficiency

Despite the heavy inlet loading of SO2 to the caustic scrubber in the

White Oil Plant compliance with the SO 2 scrubber emissions limit can

be achieved by significantly increasing the fresh caustic feed rate to the

scrubber

Overall White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75

reduction in SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber This

decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 tons of S02 annually

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst can reduce the caustic required for

S02 scrubber emissions compliance and achieve several other economic and pollution benefits These benefits may pay for the cost of new catalyst

Planning discussions were conducted with the Petrochema staff to

conduct Goudron sludge neutralization testing after the WECRadian team returned to the United States

Radian performed classroom and field training of the Petrochema staff

on the operation of the SO 2 analyzer This training should enable Petrochemas capable staff to conduct their own plant tests in the future

From the March 1994 tests conducted by Petrochema the following was accomplished or determined

Plant test data were collected to demonstrate the effectiveness of the

neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration

Neutralized Goudron sludge mixtures when burned demonstrated SO 2

emissions which were 72 less on average than previously burned unneutralized mixtures This decrease is equivalent to a reduction of

185 metric tons of SO annually

2

30

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 emissions uponNeutralized Goudron sludge mixtures yield average

incineration which comply with the incinerators emissions permit limit

VISIT AND TESTING LOGISTICS

The WEC team consisted of four members Dr Bhushan Lodh WEC Project

Manager Mr Edward Andrechak Radian Department Head Mr Jim Howes Radian Senior

Staff Scientist and Mrs Olga Hauskrechtovd Slovak Consultant

The facility visit took place from Wednesday 1 December through Wednesday

8 December 1993 During the facility visit and the collection of test data we worked with

various members of the Petrochema staff including but not limited to Mr Josef Surdb

Technical and Production Director Ms Maria BabiakovA Head of the Department of the

Mrs Halajovd Air Emissions Engineer Department of theEnvironmental Protection Mr Michael Majercik Head of the White Oil ProductionEnvironmental Protection

Department Mr Vagner Chief Technologist White Oil Production Department and Mr

Tibor Duris Head of Energy Department Photographs of the PetrochemaRadianWEC team

and some of the analytical equipment are presented in Attachment A

1 December 1993 the analyzer was unpacked and installed in the White OilOn From 2 December through 5 December test dataPlant in preparation for data colle-tion

were collected for the optimization of SO3 production and minimization of SO2 emissions in

the White Oil Plant On 6 December the WECRadianPetrochema team reviewed the

proposed test plan for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge (this testing was

conducted by the Petrochema staff in March 1994) On 6 and 7 December Jim Howes of

Radian conducted classroom and field training for the SO 2 analyzer which was used to collect On 8 December we met with Mr Jfnthe waste minimization test data for both projects

Matag General Director to present our preliminary visit findings

Returning to Bratislava on Thursday 9 December we met with Mr Ivan Sojka

Chief of Environmental Group and Mr Andrej Soltes Engineer at the Ministry of Economy

We also met with Mr Ivan Hejda Head of Chemia and Mr Lorento reiterate our findings Schulze and Mr Martin Brunovsky of US Agency for International Development (USAID)

to discuss the current status of our project at Petrochema and possible future action

As agreed during our December visit Petrochema staff completed a series of

incineration tests in March 1994 The purpose of these subsequent tests was to determine the

effectiveness of the neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration Petrochema forwarded the March test results to Radian for analysis in May

1994

3q

RADIAN CORPORATION

40 WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NOI OPTIMIZATION OF SO 3 PRODUCTION IN THE WHITE OIL PLANT

The optimization of SO3 production and its subsequent usage during white oil production involved testing the performance of two stages in the production process The

two-step performance test measured the efficiency of 1) the vanadium pentoxide (V205 ) conversion catalyst which converts S02 to S03 and 2) the caustic scrubber which captures unconverted SO2 at the end of the process line Figure 1 shows a simplified process flow of the overall white oil production process Figure 2 shows the process flow for the production

and consumption of SO 3 in the White Oil Plant

Step one involved a performance test conducted on the V20 5 conversion catalyst This catalyst converts SO2 into SO 3 for use in sulphonating white oil feedstock Unconverted SO 2 passes through the white oil production system and is treated in a caustic scrubber at the tail end of the plant The objective of this first step was to increase the conversion of SO 3 thereby decreasing the amount of unreacted SO 2 left to pass through the system to the scrubber Excessive unreacted SO 2 could potentially overwhelm the scrubbers design capability resulting in high SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Parameters which could be varied to optimize SO3 converter efficiency were sulfur feed rate inlet bed catalyst temperature system pressure air feed rate and residence time (by additional catalyst) Only sulfur feed rate and inlet bed catalyst temperature were varied during the December 1993 test program

Step two of this optimization project involved a performance test conducted on the caustic scrubber ensuring that unreacted SO2 emissions do not pass through the scrubber to the atmosphere The main parameter which could be varied to optimize caustic scrubber performance was the rate of fresh caustic fed to the scrubber

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the optimization of SO3 in the White Oil Plant are presented in the following sections

41 Test Program Objectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Optimize the production of SO 3 from SO 2 in the V20 5 catalytic converter

Optimize the caustic scrubber operation to minimize SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Demonstrate compliance with the recently received (June 1993) scrubber 3 emissions permit limit for SO of 2500 mgn

4O

--

42

RADIAN CORPORATION

If successful in optimizing the converter and the scrubber quantify the

following

Actual reduction of scrubber SO2 emissions to the atmosphere

Net reduction in liquid sulfur feed volume

Net reduction in caustic consumption

Cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties for the period

1993-1998

Cost savings for reduction of liquid sulfur usage and

Cost savings for reduction in scrubber caustic usage

Test Methodology

Based on several discussions with Mr Majercik and Mr Vagner on

Wednesday 1 December we agreed to the following test plan to meet the test programs

The plan reflected what was technically feasible given the limitations of plantobjectives Specifically we agreed to vary theequipment and controls in the existing White Oil Plant

sulfur feed rate to the plant at rates ranging from 86 kghr to 120 kghr For each sulfur feed

rate condition the first bed inlet catalyst temperature was set to a reading that was considered optimal for that sulfur feed rate based upon the plant operators judgement Downstream

were determined by the inlet temperature ofcatalyst bed temperatures could not be varied and

the first bed

At the same time at each sulfur feed rate condition the caustic feed rate to the

was varied from 12 hr to 120 hr At each caustic rate the SO 2 concentration wasscrubber measured at the scrubber outlet to the atmosphere using the S02 analyzer provided by WEC

Figure 3 shows the location of the SO 2 measurement in relation to the scrubber From these an optimum caustic feed rate at eachoutlet SO 2 measurements we were able to determine

sulfur feed rate condition

measure aIn addition the scrubber was shut down at the end of each trial to

scrubber inlet concentration By taking both inlet and outlet SO 2 measurements for the Using these datascrubber the scrubber efficiency could be evaluated for each caustic rate

an overall assessment could also be made of the adequacy of the scrubber design to meet the

new permit emission limits for SO 2 from the scrubber given the existing converter catalyst

inlet loading to the scrubberperformance and resultant SO

Finally the scrubber inlet SO2 concentration measurement at each sulfur feed

an overall SO 2 balance around the catalytic converter Byrate could also be used to perform

5 11

43

RADIAN CORPORATION

performing this material balance the efficiency of the catalytic converter could be estimated and compared with expected design efficiency (conversion)

Following the test methodology described above live test trials were performed at sulfur feed rates of 86 90 100 106 and 120 kghr respectively First bed inlet catalyst temperatures were set at optimal conditions based upon operator judgement Generally the first bed inlet temperatures and the resultant converter temperature profile were consistent with literature values (400-430 C) for proper reaction kinetics and thermodynamic conversion

Within each trial the water rate to the scrubber was held approximately constant in the range of 15-18 1min The caustic feed rate however was varied from 12 to 120 lhr depending on the trial Scrubber outlet SO 2 concentrations were measured at each new caustic feed rate At the end of each trial a scrubber inlet SO 2 concentration was measured It should be noted that in all cases but one the inlet S02 was too high to be read on-scale by the analyzer For purposes of completing the SO 2 material balance around the catalytic converter and calciulating a converter efficiency we diluted the sample on the fifth trial (90 kghr sulfur) with air and obtained an on-scale reading

Test Results

The discussion of the test results is focused relative to our test objectives Test data sheets for each trial and graphs of the individual trials showing scrubber outlet SO 2

concentrations versus caustic feed rate are provided in Attachment B Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment C

Catalytic Converter Optimization and Efficiency

For catalytic converter efficiency we determined that the catalyst in the converter is achieving less than 70 conversion compared with a design conversion of 96 percent The sample calculation is shown as C-I in Attachment C The material balance which supports this converter efficiency calculation was performed for Trial No 5 at a sulfur feed rate of 90 kghr The off-scale measurements for inlet SO2 concentrations in Trial Nos 1-4 lend further support to the conclusion that the converter is operating well below the design efficiency

We were able to determine that the catalyst efficiency was generally low after the first four days of testing It was felt at the time of testing that small gains in converter efficiency (0-3) could be achieved by continuing the optimization tests However based upon such a low efficiency relative to design it was hypothesized that the catalyst was damaged by either poisoning aging or sintering Given the low efficiency the tests were terminated pending future resolution of the catalyst issue

6

RADIAN COItPORATION

Caustic Scrubber Optimization

While collecting the converter optimization data we were also collecting data

to optimize the caustic scrubber performance As discussed earlier we chose to vary fresh

caustic feed rate in each trial Figure 4 shows the correlation between caustic feed rate and

outlet SO2 emissions from the scrubber to the atmosphere Generally as liquid sulfur feed

rate to the plant increased the outlet SO 2 emissions from the scrubber also incresed at a

given caustic feed rate This observation is most evident on the graph at 40 Ihr caustic

Assuming a fairly constant scrubber efficiency this suggests tha no clear optimum sulfur feed

rate was found The inefficient converter passed more unreacted SO 2 with increasing sulfur

feed rate which in turn resulted in a higher outlet concentration of SO 2 from the scrubber

At each sulfur feed rate it was observed without exception that as caustic feed

rate increased outlet scrubber SO 2 emissions decreased From Figure 4 it appears that the

curve has two parts a steep decline in SO 2 emissions from 0-40 1hr caustic feed rate

Between 40 and 60 lhr depending upon the liquid sulfur feed rate the curve flattens out

From approximately 50 Ihr to 120 1hr caustic (maximum caustic feed pump rate) relative

SO emissions reductions are smaller per unit increase of caustic

The caustic scrubber efficiency ranges from an estimated 73 in Trial 5 at 40

Ihr caustic to 90-93 in Trials 1-4 Some sample calculations for scrubber efficiency are

provided as calculation C-2 in Attachment C Therefore it appears from the data set that the

scrubber can achieve good efficiency (gt90) However it is continuously being heavily

loaded with unconverted 302 from the catalytic converter

SO 2 Emissions Compliance

Achieving compliance with the new (June 1993) SO 2 scrubber emissions limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) will require that Petrochema generally increase the caustic feed

rate from typical levels of 12-20 Ihr to 60-70 lhr This represents a 250-400 increase in

the amount of caustic the plant will now use to achieve compliance for SO 2 emissions It also

should be noted that at these higher caustic feed levels Petiochema will achieve compliance

but not by much Figure 4 can be used as a SO 2 emissions compliance curve for the existing

catalyst in the SO 2 converter

Some preliminary calculations Radiaa performed (not shown) suggest that at

least two to three times the stoichiometric amount of caustic is necessary to achieve

compliance This further suggests that the inefficient SO2 converter may be overloading the

design capability of the caustic scrubber

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Despite the low converter efficiency the scrubber optimization tests

demonstrated a reduction of outlet SO emissions to the atmosphere from 10000 mgm3 (3836

ppmv) reported during our May 1993 visit and observed during our December 1993 visit to

31

44

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 2: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

REPORT DISTRIBUTION

James D Taft Senior Environmental Specialist Bureau for Europe and New Independent States

Patricia Lerner USAID Representative Bratasila Slovak Republic

Patricia A Swahn Acquisitions Manager Document Acquisitions United States Agency for International Development

Antony G Marcil

George Carter

Thomas J McGrath

Romuald Michalek

Bohdan Aftanas

B Bhushan Lodh

Carl M Schwing

Olga Hauskrechtova WEC Coordinator Slovak Republic

Donald M Jackson Radian Corporation

Edward Andrechak Radian Corporation

James E Howes Jr Radian Corporation

Jan Matas General Director Petrochema

V Sepe

File

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I Introduction 1

I1 Executive Sum mary 2 - 4

II1 Radian Corporation Report 5

IV Business Cards of Contacts 6

IINTRODUCTION

Pursuant to the technical assistance for Central and Eastern European countries funded by the United States Agency for International Development the World Environment Center (WEC) conducted a Waste Minimization Demonstration Project (WMDP) at the Petrochema White Oil Plant located in Dubova The participants were

Thomas J McGrath - Vice President WEC

B Bhushan Lodh - Project Manager WEC

Samuel Weiss - WEC Specialist

Edward Andrechak - Radian Corporation Consultant

James E Howes Jr - Radian Corporation Consultant

The purpose of the Waste Minimization Demonstration Project included formation of the Waste Minimization Committee conducting a demonstration session and hands-on training on the sulfur dioxide analyzer optimization of the sulfur dioxide converter and caustic scrubber and collection of san-pling data at the manufacturing facility The Petrochema personnel conducted the Goudron sludge incineration tests and the data were analyzed by the consultant Radian Corporation

This final report issued by Radian Corporation includes the details of the WMDP program and conclusions and recommendations to minimize the sulfur dioxide reduction at the Petrochema White Oil Plant

II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pursuant to the technical assistance program for Central and East Europeancountries funded by the U Agency for International Development the World Environment Center (WE(C) had organized a reconnaissance trip to PetrochemaDubova fiovak Rlepublic a manufacturer of lubricating oils located in the vestern most part of the Slovak Republic during May 9 1993 to May 13 1993

The WEC team and Petrochema management selecte J the White Oil Plant for the waste minimization demonstration project (WMDP) - he consulting engineer andthe volunteer expert identified two WMDP projects namely optimization of sulfur trioxide production and the other neutralization of Goudron sludge to reduce the sulfur dioxide emission thereby complying with the new regulatory permitrequirements The consulting engineer estimated that the regulatory penalty cost savings of $35000 can be achieved from both the WMDPs between the years 1993 - 1998

A project implementation trip to Petrochema was organized from December 1 to December 8 1993 The project team consisted of WEC staff Dr Bhushan Lodh and the consultants Mr Edward Andrechak and Mr James E Howes Jr from Radian Corporation

The following tasks were completed

o The sulfur dioxide analyzer was assembled calibrated and tested

o The sampling probe was installed at the exit duct of the caustic scrubber Tests were conducted at various sulfur feed rates to the sulfur dioxide generator and caustic feed rates to the scrubber The corresponding sulfur dioxide concentration was measured at the exit duct of the scrubber Sulfur dioxide concentration was also measured when caustic scrubber was not in operation

o Demonstration session and hands-on training were provided to Petrochema personnel to operate the sulfur dioxide analyzer The Petrochema training personnel included the varioi is department managerstechnicians and maintenance employees which also constituted the waste minimization committee (WMC) members

o Petrochema staff will conduct the tests as outlined by Radian Corporation to incinerate the Goudron sludge wastes and forward the data to Radian for analysis

2

Based upon the analysis of the test results collected the following are the conclusions and recommendations

1 Sulfur dioxide converter appears to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency resulting in high concentration of unconverted sulfur dioxide entering the caustic scrubber

2 The caustic scrubber efficiency is found to be greater than 90

3 At the existing plant conditions by burning liquid sulfur at the rate of 100 kg per hour and maintaining caustic rate in the scrubber between 60-70 liters per hour the sulfur dioxide concentration in the emission from the scrubber foulnd to be 960 ppmv which complies with the regulatory requirement Petrochema should operate the White Oil Plant at or near the above mentioned conditions This will result in a regulatory penalty cost savings of US $10000 for the period 1993 to 1998

4 It is recommended that Petrochema should change the catalyst in the sulfur dioxide converter which will result in approximately 120 ppmv sulfur dioxide emission from the White Oil Plant The plant will save annually US $10000 in liquid sulfur consumption and US $28000 to $35000 in caustic reduction

The calculated total annual cost savinc fjr the raw materials is more than US $45000 annually

5 Tiie low concentration of sulfur dioxide emission (120 ppmvj from the White Oil Plant due to new catalyst in the converter will enable to preserve the pristine nature of the two national parks in Dubova and a better environment It will also remove the potential obstacle to the tourism industry

6 It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at the exit section of the scrubber tc contain the unabsorbed sulfur trioxide mists

Seven incineration tests were conducted by Petrochema personnel using various mixtures of Goudronx sludge wastewater treatment sludge oily contaminated soil and sewage The data were transmitted to Radian Corporation for analysis and the results are presented in this report

The report recommends to neutralize the Goudron sludge wastes by combining with other alkaline wastes prior to incineration This will achieve the compliance with sulfur dioxide emission limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1154 ppmv) and save Petrochema from the sulfur dioxide emission penalty of approximately 775000

3

Slovak Korunas ($25000)

Please refer to consultant Radian Corporation report Section III

4

III RADIAN CORPORATION REPORT

5

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in the report is the professional opinion of the author and does not represent the official position of the Government of the United States or the World Environment Center

RADIAN CORPORATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO Dr Bhushan Lodh Project Manager World Environment Center

FROM Edward M Andrechak Radian Corporation

DATE 27 July 1994

SUBJECT Petrochema Waste Minimization Demonstration Program For SO2

Emissions Reduction--Final Report

10 INTRODUCTION

This technical memorandum summarizes the findings of our December 1993 visit to the Petrochema Dubova Oil Refinery in the Slovak Republic This was the second visit to Petrochema as part of the World Environment Centers (WEC) Waste Minimization Demonstration Program This memorandum also documents the results of test data collected by Petrochema in March 1994

In our initial visit in May 1993 we identified two separate waste minimization projects for the reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emissions (See the previous technical memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations [Radian 8 June 1993] for more detailed background information) Both projects are associated with the production of white oil The purpose of this second visit and the subsequent testing in March 1994 was to perform test measurements to quantify the projected SO2 emissions reductions and the associated economic savings from the implementation of these two projects

This document is organized by the following sections Section 20 presents a summary of the findings of the December visit and March testing Section 30 discusses the visit and testing logistics Section 40 presents the test program and resalts for optimizing

sulfur trioxide (SO 3) in the White Oil Plant and Section 50 presents the waste minimization program involving the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge Figures and tables referenced in the memorandum are attached Also attached are photographs of some of the

analytical equipment and of the PetrochemaRadian WEC team members (Attachment A) the test data collected during the December 1993 visit (Attachment B) sample calculations for the White Oil Plant optimization (Attachment C) test data collected in March 1994 (Attachment D) and sample calculations collected for Goudron sludge neutralization and incineration (Attachment E)

20 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

During our eight-day testing and training visit to the Petrochema Refinery in December 1993 the following was accomplished or determined

1 -7

RADIAN CORPORATION

A new S02 analyzer was installed in both the White Oil Plant and at Incinerator No 2 The analyzer worked successfully and provided accurate test data primarily for the optimization of S03 production in the White Oil Plant

Plant test data were collected in the White Oil Plant for both the

optimization of the SO 2 catalytic converter and the caustic scrubber

From our test results the catalyst in the converter appeared to be

deactivated achieving less than 70 conversion At the same time the

caustic scrubber appeared to be operating well achieving greater than

90 SO2 removal efficiency

Despite the heavy inlet loading of SO2 to the caustic scrubber in the

White Oil Plant compliance with the SO 2 scrubber emissions limit can

be achieved by significantly increasing the fresh caustic feed rate to the

scrubber

Overall White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75

reduction in SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber This

decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 tons of S02 annually

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst can reduce the caustic required for

S02 scrubber emissions compliance and achieve several other economic and pollution benefits These benefits may pay for the cost of new catalyst

Planning discussions were conducted with the Petrochema staff to

conduct Goudron sludge neutralization testing after the WECRadian team returned to the United States

Radian performed classroom and field training of the Petrochema staff

on the operation of the SO 2 analyzer This training should enable Petrochemas capable staff to conduct their own plant tests in the future

From the March 1994 tests conducted by Petrochema the following was accomplished or determined

Plant test data were collected to demonstrate the effectiveness of the

neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration

Neutralized Goudron sludge mixtures when burned demonstrated SO 2

emissions which were 72 less on average than previously burned unneutralized mixtures This decrease is equivalent to a reduction of

185 metric tons of SO annually

2

30

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 emissions uponNeutralized Goudron sludge mixtures yield average

incineration which comply with the incinerators emissions permit limit

VISIT AND TESTING LOGISTICS

The WEC team consisted of four members Dr Bhushan Lodh WEC Project

Manager Mr Edward Andrechak Radian Department Head Mr Jim Howes Radian Senior

Staff Scientist and Mrs Olga Hauskrechtovd Slovak Consultant

The facility visit took place from Wednesday 1 December through Wednesday

8 December 1993 During the facility visit and the collection of test data we worked with

various members of the Petrochema staff including but not limited to Mr Josef Surdb

Technical and Production Director Ms Maria BabiakovA Head of the Department of the

Mrs Halajovd Air Emissions Engineer Department of theEnvironmental Protection Mr Michael Majercik Head of the White Oil ProductionEnvironmental Protection

Department Mr Vagner Chief Technologist White Oil Production Department and Mr

Tibor Duris Head of Energy Department Photographs of the PetrochemaRadianWEC team

and some of the analytical equipment are presented in Attachment A

1 December 1993 the analyzer was unpacked and installed in the White OilOn From 2 December through 5 December test dataPlant in preparation for data colle-tion

were collected for the optimization of SO3 production and minimization of SO2 emissions in

the White Oil Plant On 6 December the WECRadianPetrochema team reviewed the

proposed test plan for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge (this testing was

conducted by the Petrochema staff in March 1994) On 6 and 7 December Jim Howes of

Radian conducted classroom and field training for the SO 2 analyzer which was used to collect On 8 December we met with Mr Jfnthe waste minimization test data for both projects

Matag General Director to present our preliminary visit findings

Returning to Bratislava on Thursday 9 December we met with Mr Ivan Sojka

Chief of Environmental Group and Mr Andrej Soltes Engineer at the Ministry of Economy

We also met with Mr Ivan Hejda Head of Chemia and Mr Lorento reiterate our findings Schulze and Mr Martin Brunovsky of US Agency for International Development (USAID)

to discuss the current status of our project at Petrochema and possible future action

As agreed during our December visit Petrochema staff completed a series of

incineration tests in March 1994 The purpose of these subsequent tests was to determine the

effectiveness of the neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration Petrochema forwarded the March test results to Radian for analysis in May

1994

3q

RADIAN CORPORATION

40 WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NOI OPTIMIZATION OF SO 3 PRODUCTION IN THE WHITE OIL PLANT

The optimization of SO3 production and its subsequent usage during white oil production involved testing the performance of two stages in the production process The

two-step performance test measured the efficiency of 1) the vanadium pentoxide (V205 ) conversion catalyst which converts S02 to S03 and 2) the caustic scrubber which captures unconverted SO2 at the end of the process line Figure 1 shows a simplified process flow of the overall white oil production process Figure 2 shows the process flow for the production

and consumption of SO 3 in the White Oil Plant

Step one involved a performance test conducted on the V20 5 conversion catalyst This catalyst converts SO2 into SO 3 for use in sulphonating white oil feedstock Unconverted SO 2 passes through the white oil production system and is treated in a caustic scrubber at the tail end of the plant The objective of this first step was to increase the conversion of SO 3 thereby decreasing the amount of unreacted SO 2 left to pass through the system to the scrubber Excessive unreacted SO 2 could potentially overwhelm the scrubbers design capability resulting in high SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Parameters which could be varied to optimize SO3 converter efficiency were sulfur feed rate inlet bed catalyst temperature system pressure air feed rate and residence time (by additional catalyst) Only sulfur feed rate and inlet bed catalyst temperature were varied during the December 1993 test program

Step two of this optimization project involved a performance test conducted on the caustic scrubber ensuring that unreacted SO2 emissions do not pass through the scrubber to the atmosphere The main parameter which could be varied to optimize caustic scrubber performance was the rate of fresh caustic fed to the scrubber

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the optimization of SO3 in the White Oil Plant are presented in the following sections

41 Test Program Objectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Optimize the production of SO 3 from SO 2 in the V20 5 catalytic converter

Optimize the caustic scrubber operation to minimize SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Demonstrate compliance with the recently received (June 1993) scrubber 3 emissions permit limit for SO of 2500 mgn

4O

--

42

RADIAN CORPORATION

If successful in optimizing the converter and the scrubber quantify the

following

Actual reduction of scrubber SO2 emissions to the atmosphere

Net reduction in liquid sulfur feed volume

Net reduction in caustic consumption

Cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties for the period

1993-1998

Cost savings for reduction of liquid sulfur usage and

Cost savings for reduction in scrubber caustic usage

Test Methodology

Based on several discussions with Mr Majercik and Mr Vagner on

Wednesday 1 December we agreed to the following test plan to meet the test programs

The plan reflected what was technically feasible given the limitations of plantobjectives Specifically we agreed to vary theequipment and controls in the existing White Oil Plant

sulfur feed rate to the plant at rates ranging from 86 kghr to 120 kghr For each sulfur feed

rate condition the first bed inlet catalyst temperature was set to a reading that was considered optimal for that sulfur feed rate based upon the plant operators judgement Downstream

were determined by the inlet temperature ofcatalyst bed temperatures could not be varied and

the first bed

At the same time at each sulfur feed rate condition the caustic feed rate to the

was varied from 12 hr to 120 hr At each caustic rate the SO 2 concentration wasscrubber measured at the scrubber outlet to the atmosphere using the S02 analyzer provided by WEC

Figure 3 shows the location of the SO 2 measurement in relation to the scrubber From these an optimum caustic feed rate at eachoutlet SO 2 measurements we were able to determine

sulfur feed rate condition

measure aIn addition the scrubber was shut down at the end of each trial to

scrubber inlet concentration By taking both inlet and outlet SO 2 measurements for the Using these datascrubber the scrubber efficiency could be evaluated for each caustic rate

an overall assessment could also be made of the adequacy of the scrubber design to meet the

new permit emission limits for SO 2 from the scrubber given the existing converter catalyst

inlet loading to the scrubberperformance and resultant SO

Finally the scrubber inlet SO2 concentration measurement at each sulfur feed

an overall SO 2 balance around the catalytic converter Byrate could also be used to perform

5 11

43

RADIAN CORPORATION

performing this material balance the efficiency of the catalytic converter could be estimated and compared with expected design efficiency (conversion)

Following the test methodology described above live test trials were performed at sulfur feed rates of 86 90 100 106 and 120 kghr respectively First bed inlet catalyst temperatures were set at optimal conditions based upon operator judgement Generally the first bed inlet temperatures and the resultant converter temperature profile were consistent with literature values (400-430 C) for proper reaction kinetics and thermodynamic conversion

Within each trial the water rate to the scrubber was held approximately constant in the range of 15-18 1min The caustic feed rate however was varied from 12 to 120 lhr depending on the trial Scrubber outlet SO 2 concentrations were measured at each new caustic feed rate At the end of each trial a scrubber inlet SO 2 concentration was measured It should be noted that in all cases but one the inlet S02 was too high to be read on-scale by the analyzer For purposes of completing the SO 2 material balance around the catalytic converter and calciulating a converter efficiency we diluted the sample on the fifth trial (90 kghr sulfur) with air and obtained an on-scale reading

Test Results

The discussion of the test results is focused relative to our test objectives Test data sheets for each trial and graphs of the individual trials showing scrubber outlet SO 2

concentrations versus caustic feed rate are provided in Attachment B Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment C

Catalytic Converter Optimization and Efficiency

For catalytic converter efficiency we determined that the catalyst in the converter is achieving less than 70 conversion compared with a design conversion of 96 percent The sample calculation is shown as C-I in Attachment C The material balance which supports this converter efficiency calculation was performed for Trial No 5 at a sulfur feed rate of 90 kghr The off-scale measurements for inlet SO2 concentrations in Trial Nos 1-4 lend further support to the conclusion that the converter is operating well below the design efficiency

We were able to determine that the catalyst efficiency was generally low after the first four days of testing It was felt at the time of testing that small gains in converter efficiency (0-3) could be achieved by continuing the optimization tests However based upon such a low efficiency relative to design it was hypothesized that the catalyst was damaged by either poisoning aging or sintering Given the low efficiency the tests were terminated pending future resolution of the catalyst issue

6

RADIAN COItPORATION

Caustic Scrubber Optimization

While collecting the converter optimization data we were also collecting data

to optimize the caustic scrubber performance As discussed earlier we chose to vary fresh

caustic feed rate in each trial Figure 4 shows the correlation between caustic feed rate and

outlet SO2 emissions from the scrubber to the atmosphere Generally as liquid sulfur feed

rate to the plant increased the outlet SO 2 emissions from the scrubber also incresed at a

given caustic feed rate This observation is most evident on the graph at 40 Ihr caustic

Assuming a fairly constant scrubber efficiency this suggests tha no clear optimum sulfur feed

rate was found The inefficient converter passed more unreacted SO 2 with increasing sulfur

feed rate which in turn resulted in a higher outlet concentration of SO 2 from the scrubber

At each sulfur feed rate it was observed without exception that as caustic feed

rate increased outlet scrubber SO 2 emissions decreased From Figure 4 it appears that the

curve has two parts a steep decline in SO 2 emissions from 0-40 1hr caustic feed rate

Between 40 and 60 lhr depending upon the liquid sulfur feed rate the curve flattens out

From approximately 50 Ihr to 120 1hr caustic (maximum caustic feed pump rate) relative

SO emissions reductions are smaller per unit increase of caustic

The caustic scrubber efficiency ranges from an estimated 73 in Trial 5 at 40

Ihr caustic to 90-93 in Trials 1-4 Some sample calculations for scrubber efficiency are

provided as calculation C-2 in Attachment C Therefore it appears from the data set that the

scrubber can achieve good efficiency (gt90) However it is continuously being heavily

loaded with unconverted 302 from the catalytic converter

SO 2 Emissions Compliance

Achieving compliance with the new (June 1993) SO 2 scrubber emissions limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) will require that Petrochema generally increase the caustic feed

rate from typical levels of 12-20 Ihr to 60-70 lhr This represents a 250-400 increase in

the amount of caustic the plant will now use to achieve compliance for SO 2 emissions It also

should be noted that at these higher caustic feed levels Petiochema will achieve compliance

but not by much Figure 4 can be used as a SO 2 emissions compliance curve for the existing

catalyst in the SO 2 converter

Some preliminary calculations Radiaa performed (not shown) suggest that at

least two to three times the stoichiometric amount of caustic is necessary to achieve

compliance This further suggests that the inefficient SO2 converter may be overloading the

design capability of the caustic scrubber

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Despite the low converter efficiency the scrubber optimization tests

demonstrated a reduction of outlet SO emissions to the atmosphere from 10000 mgm3 (3836

ppmv) reported during our May 1993 visit and observed during our December 1993 visit to

31

44

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 3: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I Introduction 1

I1 Executive Sum mary 2 - 4

II1 Radian Corporation Report 5

IV Business Cards of Contacts 6

IINTRODUCTION

Pursuant to the technical assistance for Central and Eastern European countries funded by the United States Agency for International Development the World Environment Center (WEC) conducted a Waste Minimization Demonstration Project (WMDP) at the Petrochema White Oil Plant located in Dubova The participants were

Thomas J McGrath - Vice President WEC

B Bhushan Lodh - Project Manager WEC

Samuel Weiss - WEC Specialist

Edward Andrechak - Radian Corporation Consultant

James E Howes Jr - Radian Corporation Consultant

The purpose of the Waste Minimization Demonstration Project included formation of the Waste Minimization Committee conducting a demonstration session and hands-on training on the sulfur dioxide analyzer optimization of the sulfur dioxide converter and caustic scrubber and collection of san-pling data at the manufacturing facility The Petrochema personnel conducted the Goudron sludge incineration tests and the data were analyzed by the consultant Radian Corporation

This final report issued by Radian Corporation includes the details of the WMDP program and conclusions and recommendations to minimize the sulfur dioxide reduction at the Petrochema White Oil Plant

II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pursuant to the technical assistance program for Central and East Europeancountries funded by the U Agency for International Development the World Environment Center (WE(C) had organized a reconnaissance trip to PetrochemaDubova fiovak Rlepublic a manufacturer of lubricating oils located in the vestern most part of the Slovak Republic during May 9 1993 to May 13 1993

The WEC team and Petrochema management selecte J the White Oil Plant for the waste minimization demonstration project (WMDP) - he consulting engineer andthe volunteer expert identified two WMDP projects namely optimization of sulfur trioxide production and the other neutralization of Goudron sludge to reduce the sulfur dioxide emission thereby complying with the new regulatory permitrequirements The consulting engineer estimated that the regulatory penalty cost savings of $35000 can be achieved from both the WMDPs between the years 1993 - 1998

A project implementation trip to Petrochema was organized from December 1 to December 8 1993 The project team consisted of WEC staff Dr Bhushan Lodh and the consultants Mr Edward Andrechak and Mr James E Howes Jr from Radian Corporation

The following tasks were completed

o The sulfur dioxide analyzer was assembled calibrated and tested

o The sampling probe was installed at the exit duct of the caustic scrubber Tests were conducted at various sulfur feed rates to the sulfur dioxide generator and caustic feed rates to the scrubber The corresponding sulfur dioxide concentration was measured at the exit duct of the scrubber Sulfur dioxide concentration was also measured when caustic scrubber was not in operation

o Demonstration session and hands-on training were provided to Petrochema personnel to operate the sulfur dioxide analyzer The Petrochema training personnel included the varioi is department managerstechnicians and maintenance employees which also constituted the waste minimization committee (WMC) members

o Petrochema staff will conduct the tests as outlined by Radian Corporation to incinerate the Goudron sludge wastes and forward the data to Radian for analysis

2

Based upon the analysis of the test results collected the following are the conclusions and recommendations

1 Sulfur dioxide converter appears to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency resulting in high concentration of unconverted sulfur dioxide entering the caustic scrubber

2 The caustic scrubber efficiency is found to be greater than 90

3 At the existing plant conditions by burning liquid sulfur at the rate of 100 kg per hour and maintaining caustic rate in the scrubber between 60-70 liters per hour the sulfur dioxide concentration in the emission from the scrubber foulnd to be 960 ppmv which complies with the regulatory requirement Petrochema should operate the White Oil Plant at or near the above mentioned conditions This will result in a regulatory penalty cost savings of US $10000 for the period 1993 to 1998

4 It is recommended that Petrochema should change the catalyst in the sulfur dioxide converter which will result in approximately 120 ppmv sulfur dioxide emission from the White Oil Plant The plant will save annually US $10000 in liquid sulfur consumption and US $28000 to $35000 in caustic reduction

The calculated total annual cost savinc fjr the raw materials is more than US $45000 annually

5 Tiie low concentration of sulfur dioxide emission (120 ppmvj from the White Oil Plant due to new catalyst in the converter will enable to preserve the pristine nature of the two national parks in Dubova and a better environment It will also remove the potential obstacle to the tourism industry

6 It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at the exit section of the scrubber tc contain the unabsorbed sulfur trioxide mists

Seven incineration tests were conducted by Petrochema personnel using various mixtures of Goudronx sludge wastewater treatment sludge oily contaminated soil and sewage The data were transmitted to Radian Corporation for analysis and the results are presented in this report

The report recommends to neutralize the Goudron sludge wastes by combining with other alkaline wastes prior to incineration This will achieve the compliance with sulfur dioxide emission limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1154 ppmv) and save Petrochema from the sulfur dioxide emission penalty of approximately 775000

3

Slovak Korunas ($25000)

Please refer to consultant Radian Corporation report Section III

4

III RADIAN CORPORATION REPORT

5

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in the report is the professional opinion of the author and does not represent the official position of the Government of the United States or the World Environment Center

RADIAN CORPORATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO Dr Bhushan Lodh Project Manager World Environment Center

FROM Edward M Andrechak Radian Corporation

DATE 27 July 1994

SUBJECT Petrochema Waste Minimization Demonstration Program For SO2

Emissions Reduction--Final Report

10 INTRODUCTION

This technical memorandum summarizes the findings of our December 1993 visit to the Petrochema Dubova Oil Refinery in the Slovak Republic This was the second visit to Petrochema as part of the World Environment Centers (WEC) Waste Minimization Demonstration Program This memorandum also documents the results of test data collected by Petrochema in March 1994

In our initial visit in May 1993 we identified two separate waste minimization projects for the reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emissions (See the previous technical memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations [Radian 8 June 1993] for more detailed background information) Both projects are associated with the production of white oil The purpose of this second visit and the subsequent testing in March 1994 was to perform test measurements to quantify the projected SO2 emissions reductions and the associated economic savings from the implementation of these two projects

This document is organized by the following sections Section 20 presents a summary of the findings of the December visit and March testing Section 30 discusses the visit and testing logistics Section 40 presents the test program and resalts for optimizing

sulfur trioxide (SO 3) in the White Oil Plant and Section 50 presents the waste minimization program involving the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge Figures and tables referenced in the memorandum are attached Also attached are photographs of some of the

analytical equipment and of the PetrochemaRadian WEC team members (Attachment A) the test data collected during the December 1993 visit (Attachment B) sample calculations for the White Oil Plant optimization (Attachment C) test data collected in March 1994 (Attachment D) and sample calculations collected for Goudron sludge neutralization and incineration (Attachment E)

20 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

During our eight-day testing and training visit to the Petrochema Refinery in December 1993 the following was accomplished or determined

1 -7

RADIAN CORPORATION

A new S02 analyzer was installed in both the White Oil Plant and at Incinerator No 2 The analyzer worked successfully and provided accurate test data primarily for the optimization of S03 production in the White Oil Plant

Plant test data were collected in the White Oil Plant for both the

optimization of the SO 2 catalytic converter and the caustic scrubber

From our test results the catalyst in the converter appeared to be

deactivated achieving less than 70 conversion At the same time the

caustic scrubber appeared to be operating well achieving greater than

90 SO2 removal efficiency

Despite the heavy inlet loading of SO2 to the caustic scrubber in the

White Oil Plant compliance with the SO 2 scrubber emissions limit can

be achieved by significantly increasing the fresh caustic feed rate to the

scrubber

Overall White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75

reduction in SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber This

decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 tons of S02 annually

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst can reduce the caustic required for

S02 scrubber emissions compliance and achieve several other economic and pollution benefits These benefits may pay for the cost of new catalyst

Planning discussions were conducted with the Petrochema staff to

conduct Goudron sludge neutralization testing after the WECRadian team returned to the United States

Radian performed classroom and field training of the Petrochema staff

on the operation of the SO 2 analyzer This training should enable Petrochemas capable staff to conduct their own plant tests in the future

From the March 1994 tests conducted by Petrochema the following was accomplished or determined

Plant test data were collected to demonstrate the effectiveness of the

neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration

Neutralized Goudron sludge mixtures when burned demonstrated SO 2

emissions which were 72 less on average than previously burned unneutralized mixtures This decrease is equivalent to a reduction of

185 metric tons of SO annually

2

30

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 emissions uponNeutralized Goudron sludge mixtures yield average

incineration which comply with the incinerators emissions permit limit

VISIT AND TESTING LOGISTICS

The WEC team consisted of four members Dr Bhushan Lodh WEC Project

Manager Mr Edward Andrechak Radian Department Head Mr Jim Howes Radian Senior

Staff Scientist and Mrs Olga Hauskrechtovd Slovak Consultant

The facility visit took place from Wednesday 1 December through Wednesday

8 December 1993 During the facility visit and the collection of test data we worked with

various members of the Petrochema staff including but not limited to Mr Josef Surdb

Technical and Production Director Ms Maria BabiakovA Head of the Department of the

Mrs Halajovd Air Emissions Engineer Department of theEnvironmental Protection Mr Michael Majercik Head of the White Oil ProductionEnvironmental Protection

Department Mr Vagner Chief Technologist White Oil Production Department and Mr

Tibor Duris Head of Energy Department Photographs of the PetrochemaRadianWEC team

and some of the analytical equipment are presented in Attachment A

1 December 1993 the analyzer was unpacked and installed in the White OilOn From 2 December through 5 December test dataPlant in preparation for data colle-tion

were collected for the optimization of SO3 production and minimization of SO2 emissions in

the White Oil Plant On 6 December the WECRadianPetrochema team reviewed the

proposed test plan for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge (this testing was

conducted by the Petrochema staff in March 1994) On 6 and 7 December Jim Howes of

Radian conducted classroom and field training for the SO 2 analyzer which was used to collect On 8 December we met with Mr Jfnthe waste minimization test data for both projects

Matag General Director to present our preliminary visit findings

Returning to Bratislava on Thursday 9 December we met with Mr Ivan Sojka

Chief of Environmental Group and Mr Andrej Soltes Engineer at the Ministry of Economy

We also met with Mr Ivan Hejda Head of Chemia and Mr Lorento reiterate our findings Schulze and Mr Martin Brunovsky of US Agency for International Development (USAID)

to discuss the current status of our project at Petrochema and possible future action

As agreed during our December visit Petrochema staff completed a series of

incineration tests in March 1994 The purpose of these subsequent tests was to determine the

effectiveness of the neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration Petrochema forwarded the March test results to Radian for analysis in May

1994

3q

RADIAN CORPORATION

40 WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NOI OPTIMIZATION OF SO 3 PRODUCTION IN THE WHITE OIL PLANT

The optimization of SO3 production and its subsequent usage during white oil production involved testing the performance of two stages in the production process The

two-step performance test measured the efficiency of 1) the vanadium pentoxide (V205 ) conversion catalyst which converts S02 to S03 and 2) the caustic scrubber which captures unconverted SO2 at the end of the process line Figure 1 shows a simplified process flow of the overall white oil production process Figure 2 shows the process flow for the production

and consumption of SO 3 in the White Oil Plant

Step one involved a performance test conducted on the V20 5 conversion catalyst This catalyst converts SO2 into SO 3 for use in sulphonating white oil feedstock Unconverted SO 2 passes through the white oil production system and is treated in a caustic scrubber at the tail end of the plant The objective of this first step was to increase the conversion of SO 3 thereby decreasing the amount of unreacted SO 2 left to pass through the system to the scrubber Excessive unreacted SO 2 could potentially overwhelm the scrubbers design capability resulting in high SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Parameters which could be varied to optimize SO3 converter efficiency were sulfur feed rate inlet bed catalyst temperature system pressure air feed rate and residence time (by additional catalyst) Only sulfur feed rate and inlet bed catalyst temperature were varied during the December 1993 test program

Step two of this optimization project involved a performance test conducted on the caustic scrubber ensuring that unreacted SO2 emissions do not pass through the scrubber to the atmosphere The main parameter which could be varied to optimize caustic scrubber performance was the rate of fresh caustic fed to the scrubber

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the optimization of SO3 in the White Oil Plant are presented in the following sections

41 Test Program Objectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Optimize the production of SO 3 from SO 2 in the V20 5 catalytic converter

Optimize the caustic scrubber operation to minimize SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Demonstrate compliance with the recently received (June 1993) scrubber 3 emissions permit limit for SO of 2500 mgn

4O

--

42

RADIAN CORPORATION

If successful in optimizing the converter and the scrubber quantify the

following

Actual reduction of scrubber SO2 emissions to the atmosphere

Net reduction in liquid sulfur feed volume

Net reduction in caustic consumption

Cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties for the period

1993-1998

Cost savings for reduction of liquid sulfur usage and

Cost savings for reduction in scrubber caustic usage

Test Methodology

Based on several discussions with Mr Majercik and Mr Vagner on

Wednesday 1 December we agreed to the following test plan to meet the test programs

The plan reflected what was technically feasible given the limitations of plantobjectives Specifically we agreed to vary theequipment and controls in the existing White Oil Plant

sulfur feed rate to the plant at rates ranging from 86 kghr to 120 kghr For each sulfur feed

rate condition the first bed inlet catalyst temperature was set to a reading that was considered optimal for that sulfur feed rate based upon the plant operators judgement Downstream

were determined by the inlet temperature ofcatalyst bed temperatures could not be varied and

the first bed

At the same time at each sulfur feed rate condition the caustic feed rate to the

was varied from 12 hr to 120 hr At each caustic rate the SO 2 concentration wasscrubber measured at the scrubber outlet to the atmosphere using the S02 analyzer provided by WEC

Figure 3 shows the location of the SO 2 measurement in relation to the scrubber From these an optimum caustic feed rate at eachoutlet SO 2 measurements we were able to determine

sulfur feed rate condition

measure aIn addition the scrubber was shut down at the end of each trial to

scrubber inlet concentration By taking both inlet and outlet SO 2 measurements for the Using these datascrubber the scrubber efficiency could be evaluated for each caustic rate

an overall assessment could also be made of the adequacy of the scrubber design to meet the

new permit emission limits for SO 2 from the scrubber given the existing converter catalyst

inlet loading to the scrubberperformance and resultant SO

Finally the scrubber inlet SO2 concentration measurement at each sulfur feed

an overall SO 2 balance around the catalytic converter Byrate could also be used to perform

5 11

43

RADIAN CORPORATION

performing this material balance the efficiency of the catalytic converter could be estimated and compared with expected design efficiency (conversion)

Following the test methodology described above live test trials were performed at sulfur feed rates of 86 90 100 106 and 120 kghr respectively First bed inlet catalyst temperatures were set at optimal conditions based upon operator judgement Generally the first bed inlet temperatures and the resultant converter temperature profile were consistent with literature values (400-430 C) for proper reaction kinetics and thermodynamic conversion

Within each trial the water rate to the scrubber was held approximately constant in the range of 15-18 1min The caustic feed rate however was varied from 12 to 120 lhr depending on the trial Scrubber outlet SO 2 concentrations were measured at each new caustic feed rate At the end of each trial a scrubber inlet SO 2 concentration was measured It should be noted that in all cases but one the inlet S02 was too high to be read on-scale by the analyzer For purposes of completing the SO 2 material balance around the catalytic converter and calciulating a converter efficiency we diluted the sample on the fifth trial (90 kghr sulfur) with air and obtained an on-scale reading

Test Results

The discussion of the test results is focused relative to our test objectives Test data sheets for each trial and graphs of the individual trials showing scrubber outlet SO 2

concentrations versus caustic feed rate are provided in Attachment B Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment C

Catalytic Converter Optimization and Efficiency

For catalytic converter efficiency we determined that the catalyst in the converter is achieving less than 70 conversion compared with a design conversion of 96 percent The sample calculation is shown as C-I in Attachment C The material balance which supports this converter efficiency calculation was performed for Trial No 5 at a sulfur feed rate of 90 kghr The off-scale measurements for inlet SO2 concentrations in Trial Nos 1-4 lend further support to the conclusion that the converter is operating well below the design efficiency

We were able to determine that the catalyst efficiency was generally low after the first four days of testing It was felt at the time of testing that small gains in converter efficiency (0-3) could be achieved by continuing the optimization tests However based upon such a low efficiency relative to design it was hypothesized that the catalyst was damaged by either poisoning aging or sintering Given the low efficiency the tests were terminated pending future resolution of the catalyst issue

6

RADIAN COItPORATION

Caustic Scrubber Optimization

While collecting the converter optimization data we were also collecting data

to optimize the caustic scrubber performance As discussed earlier we chose to vary fresh

caustic feed rate in each trial Figure 4 shows the correlation between caustic feed rate and

outlet SO2 emissions from the scrubber to the atmosphere Generally as liquid sulfur feed

rate to the plant increased the outlet SO 2 emissions from the scrubber also incresed at a

given caustic feed rate This observation is most evident on the graph at 40 Ihr caustic

Assuming a fairly constant scrubber efficiency this suggests tha no clear optimum sulfur feed

rate was found The inefficient converter passed more unreacted SO 2 with increasing sulfur

feed rate which in turn resulted in a higher outlet concentration of SO 2 from the scrubber

At each sulfur feed rate it was observed without exception that as caustic feed

rate increased outlet scrubber SO 2 emissions decreased From Figure 4 it appears that the

curve has two parts a steep decline in SO 2 emissions from 0-40 1hr caustic feed rate

Between 40 and 60 lhr depending upon the liquid sulfur feed rate the curve flattens out

From approximately 50 Ihr to 120 1hr caustic (maximum caustic feed pump rate) relative

SO emissions reductions are smaller per unit increase of caustic

The caustic scrubber efficiency ranges from an estimated 73 in Trial 5 at 40

Ihr caustic to 90-93 in Trials 1-4 Some sample calculations for scrubber efficiency are

provided as calculation C-2 in Attachment C Therefore it appears from the data set that the

scrubber can achieve good efficiency (gt90) However it is continuously being heavily

loaded with unconverted 302 from the catalytic converter

SO 2 Emissions Compliance

Achieving compliance with the new (June 1993) SO 2 scrubber emissions limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) will require that Petrochema generally increase the caustic feed

rate from typical levels of 12-20 Ihr to 60-70 lhr This represents a 250-400 increase in

the amount of caustic the plant will now use to achieve compliance for SO 2 emissions It also

should be noted that at these higher caustic feed levels Petiochema will achieve compliance

but not by much Figure 4 can be used as a SO 2 emissions compliance curve for the existing

catalyst in the SO 2 converter

Some preliminary calculations Radiaa performed (not shown) suggest that at

least two to three times the stoichiometric amount of caustic is necessary to achieve

compliance This further suggests that the inefficient SO2 converter may be overloading the

design capability of the caustic scrubber

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Despite the low converter efficiency the scrubber optimization tests

demonstrated a reduction of outlet SO emissions to the atmosphere from 10000 mgm3 (3836

ppmv) reported during our May 1993 visit and observed during our December 1993 visit to

31

44

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 4: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

IINTRODUCTION

Pursuant to the technical assistance for Central and Eastern European countries funded by the United States Agency for International Development the World Environment Center (WEC) conducted a Waste Minimization Demonstration Project (WMDP) at the Petrochema White Oil Plant located in Dubova The participants were

Thomas J McGrath - Vice President WEC

B Bhushan Lodh - Project Manager WEC

Samuel Weiss - WEC Specialist

Edward Andrechak - Radian Corporation Consultant

James E Howes Jr - Radian Corporation Consultant

The purpose of the Waste Minimization Demonstration Project included formation of the Waste Minimization Committee conducting a demonstration session and hands-on training on the sulfur dioxide analyzer optimization of the sulfur dioxide converter and caustic scrubber and collection of san-pling data at the manufacturing facility The Petrochema personnel conducted the Goudron sludge incineration tests and the data were analyzed by the consultant Radian Corporation

This final report issued by Radian Corporation includes the details of the WMDP program and conclusions and recommendations to minimize the sulfur dioxide reduction at the Petrochema White Oil Plant

II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pursuant to the technical assistance program for Central and East Europeancountries funded by the U Agency for International Development the World Environment Center (WE(C) had organized a reconnaissance trip to PetrochemaDubova fiovak Rlepublic a manufacturer of lubricating oils located in the vestern most part of the Slovak Republic during May 9 1993 to May 13 1993

The WEC team and Petrochema management selecte J the White Oil Plant for the waste minimization demonstration project (WMDP) - he consulting engineer andthe volunteer expert identified two WMDP projects namely optimization of sulfur trioxide production and the other neutralization of Goudron sludge to reduce the sulfur dioxide emission thereby complying with the new regulatory permitrequirements The consulting engineer estimated that the regulatory penalty cost savings of $35000 can be achieved from both the WMDPs between the years 1993 - 1998

A project implementation trip to Petrochema was organized from December 1 to December 8 1993 The project team consisted of WEC staff Dr Bhushan Lodh and the consultants Mr Edward Andrechak and Mr James E Howes Jr from Radian Corporation

The following tasks were completed

o The sulfur dioxide analyzer was assembled calibrated and tested

o The sampling probe was installed at the exit duct of the caustic scrubber Tests were conducted at various sulfur feed rates to the sulfur dioxide generator and caustic feed rates to the scrubber The corresponding sulfur dioxide concentration was measured at the exit duct of the scrubber Sulfur dioxide concentration was also measured when caustic scrubber was not in operation

o Demonstration session and hands-on training were provided to Petrochema personnel to operate the sulfur dioxide analyzer The Petrochema training personnel included the varioi is department managerstechnicians and maintenance employees which also constituted the waste minimization committee (WMC) members

o Petrochema staff will conduct the tests as outlined by Radian Corporation to incinerate the Goudron sludge wastes and forward the data to Radian for analysis

2

Based upon the analysis of the test results collected the following are the conclusions and recommendations

1 Sulfur dioxide converter appears to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency resulting in high concentration of unconverted sulfur dioxide entering the caustic scrubber

2 The caustic scrubber efficiency is found to be greater than 90

3 At the existing plant conditions by burning liquid sulfur at the rate of 100 kg per hour and maintaining caustic rate in the scrubber between 60-70 liters per hour the sulfur dioxide concentration in the emission from the scrubber foulnd to be 960 ppmv which complies with the regulatory requirement Petrochema should operate the White Oil Plant at or near the above mentioned conditions This will result in a regulatory penalty cost savings of US $10000 for the period 1993 to 1998

4 It is recommended that Petrochema should change the catalyst in the sulfur dioxide converter which will result in approximately 120 ppmv sulfur dioxide emission from the White Oil Plant The plant will save annually US $10000 in liquid sulfur consumption and US $28000 to $35000 in caustic reduction

The calculated total annual cost savinc fjr the raw materials is more than US $45000 annually

5 Tiie low concentration of sulfur dioxide emission (120 ppmvj from the White Oil Plant due to new catalyst in the converter will enable to preserve the pristine nature of the two national parks in Dubova and a better environment It will also remove the potential obstacle to the tourism industry

6 It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at the exit section of the scrubber tc contain the unabsorbed sulfur trioxide mists

Seven incineration tests were conducted by Petrochema personnel using various mixtures of Goudronx sludge wastewater treatment sludge oily contaminated soil and sewage The data were transmitted to Radian Corporation for analysis and the results are presented in this report

The report recommends to neutralize the Goudron sludge wastes by combining with other alkaline wastes prior to incineration This will achieve the compliance with sulfur dioxide emission limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1154 ppmv) and save Petrochema from the sulfur dioxide emission penalty of approximately 775000

3

Slovak Korunas ($25000)

Please refer to consultant Radian Corporation report Section III

4

III RADIAN CORPORATION REPORT

5

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in the report is the professional opinion of the author and does not represent the official position of the Government of the United States or the World Environment Center

RADIAN CORPORATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO Dr Bhushan Lodh Project Manager World Environment Center

FROM Edward M Andrechak Radian Corporation

DATE 27 July 1994

SUBJECT Petrochema Waste Minimization Demonstration Program For SO2

Emissions Reduction--Final Report

10 INTRODUCTION

This technical memorandum summarizes the findings of our December 1993 visit to the Petrochema Dubova Oil Refinery in the Slovak Republic This was the second visit to Petrochema as part of the World Environment Centers (WEC) Waste Minimization Demonstration Program This memorandum also documents the results of test data collected by Petrochema in March 1994

In our initial visit in May 1993 we identified two separate waste minimization projects for the reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emissions (See the previous technical memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations [Radian 8 June 1993] for more detailed background information) Both projects are associated with the production of white oil The purpose of this second visit and the subsequent testing in March 1994 was to perform test measurements to quantify the projected SO2 emissions reductions and the associated economic savings from the implementation of these two projects

This document is organized by the following sections Section 20 presents a summary of the findings of the December visit and March testing Section 30 discusses the visit and testing logistics Section 40 presents the test program and resalts for optimizing

sulfur trioxide (SO 3) in the White Oil Plant and Section 50 presents the waste minimization program involving the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge Figures and tables referenced in the memorandum are attached Also attached are photographs of some of the

analytical equipment and of the PetrochemaRadian WEC team members (Attachment A) the test data collected during the December 1993 visit (Attachment B) sample calculations for the White Oil Plant optimization (Attachment C) test data collected in March 1994 (Attachment D) and sample calculations collected for Goudron sludge neutralization and incineration (Attachment E)

20 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

During our eight-day testing and training visit to the Petrochema Refinery in December 1993 the following was accomplished or determined

1 -7

RADIAN CORPORATION

A new S02 analyzer was installed in both the White Oil Plant and at Incinerator No 2 The analyzer worked successfully and provided accurate test data primarily for the optimization of S03 production in the White Oil Plant

Plant test data were collected in the White Oil Plant for both the

optimization of the SO 2 catalytic converter and the caustic scrubber

From our test results the catalyst in the converter appeared to be

deactivated achieving less than 70 conversion At the same time the

caustic scrubber appeared to be operating well achieving greater than

90 SO2 removal efficiency

Despite the heavy inlet loading of SO2 to the caustic scrubber in the

White Oil Plant compliance with the SO 2 scrubber emissions limit can

be achieved by significantly increasing the fresh caustic feed rate to the

scrubber

Overall White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75

reduction in SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber This

decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 tons of S02 annually

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst can reduce the caustic required for

S02 scrubber emissions compliance and achieve several other economic and pollution benefits These benefits may pay for the cost of new catalyst

Planning discussions were conducted with the Petrochema staff to

conduct Goudron sludge neutralization testing after the WECRadian team returned to the United States

Radian performed classroom and field training of the Petrochema staff

on the operation of the SO 2 analyzer This training should enable Petrochemas capable staff to conduct their own plant tests in the future

From the March 1994 tests conducted by Petrochema the following was accomplished or determined

Plant test data were collected to demonstrate the effectiveness of the

neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration

Neutralized Goudron sludge mixtures when burned demonstrated SO 2

emissions which were 72 less on average than previously burned unneutralized mixtures This decrease is equivalent to a reduction of

185 metric tons of SO annually

2

30

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 emissions uponNeutralized Goudron sludge mixtures yield average

incineration which comply with the incinerators emissions permit limit

VISIT AND TESTING LOGISTICS

The WEC team consisted of four members Dr Bhushan Lodh WEC Project

Manager Mr Edward Andrechak Radian Department Head Mr Jim Howes Radian Senior

Staff Scientist and Mrs Olga Hauskrechtovd Slovak Consultant

The facility visit took place from Wednesday 1 December through Wednesday

8 December 1993 During the facility visit and the collection of test data we worked with

various members of the Petrochema staff including but not limited to Mr Josef Surdb

Technical and Production Director Ms Maria BabiakovA Head of the Department of the

Mrs Halajovd Air Emissions Engineer Department of theEnvironmental Protection Mr Michael Majercik Head of the White Oil ProductionEnvironmental Protection

Department Mr Vagner Chief Technologist White Oil Production Department and Mr

Tibor Duris Head of Energy Department Photographs of the PetrochemaRadianWEC team

and some of the analytical equipment are presented in Attachment A

1 December 1993 the analyzer was unpacked and installed in the White OilOn From 2 December through 5 December test dataPlant in preparation for data colle-tion

were collected for the optimization of SO3 production and minimization of SO2 emissions in

the White Oil Plant On 6 December the WECRadianPetrochema team reviewed the

proposed test plan for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge (this testing was

conducted by the Petrochema staff in March 1994) On 6 and 7 December Jim Howes of

Radian conducted classroom and field training for the SO 2 analyzer which was used to collect On 8 December we met with Mr Jfnthe waste minimization test data for both projects

Matag General Director to present our preliminary visit findings

Returning to Bratislava on Thursday 9 December we met with Mr Ivan Sojka

Chief of Environmental Group and Mr Andrej Soltes Engineer at the Ministry of Economy

We also met with Mr Ivan Hejda Head of Chemia and Mr Lorento reiterate our findings Schulze and Mr Martin Brunovsky of US Agency for International Development (USAID)

to discuss the current status of our project at Petrochema and possible future action

As agreed during our December visit Petrochema staff completed a series of

incineration tests in March 1994 The purpose of these subsequent tests was to determine the

effectiveness of the neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration Petrochema forwarded the March test results to Radian for analysis in May

1994

3q

RADIAN CORPORATION

40 WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NOI OPTIMIZATION OF SO 3 PRODUCTION IN THE WHITE OIL PLANT

The optimization of SO3 production and its subsequent usage during white oil production involved testing the performance of two stages in the production process The

two-step performance test measured the efficiency of 1) the vanadium pentoxide (V205 ) conversion catalyst which converts S02 to S03 and 2) the caustic scrubber which captures unconverted SO2 at the end of the process line Figure 1 shows a simplified process flow of the overall white oil production process Figure 2 shows the process flow for the production

and consumption of SO 3 in the White Oil Plant

Step one involved a performance test conducted on the V20 5 conversion catalyst This catalyst converts SO2 into SO 3 for use in sulphonating white oil feedstock Unconverted SO 2 passes through the white oil production system and is treated in a caustic scrubber at the tail end of the plant The objective of this first step was to increase the conversion of SO 3 thereby decreasing the amount of unreacted SO 2 left to pass through the system to the scrubber Excessive unreacted SO 2 could potentially overwhelm the scrubbers design capability resulting in high SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Parameters which could be varied to optimize SO3 converter efficiency were sulfur feed rate inlet bed catalyst temperature system pressure air feed rate and residence time (by additional catalyst) Only sulfur feed rate and inlet bed catalyst temperature were varied during the December 1993 test program

Step two of this optimization project involved a performance test conducted on the caustic scrubber ensuring that unreacted SO2 emissions do not pass through the scrubber to the atmosphere The main parameter which could be varied to optimize caustic scrubber performance was the rate of fresh caustic fed to the scrubber

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the optimization of SO3 in the White Oil Plant are presented in the following sections

41 Test Program Objectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Optimize the production of SO 3 from SO 2 in the V20 5 catalytic converter

Optimize the caustic scrubber operation to minimize SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Demonstrate compliance with the recently received (June 1993) scrubber 3 emissions permit limit for SO of 2500 mgn

4O

--

42

RADIAN CORPORATION

If successful in optimizing the converter and the scrubber quantify the

following

Actual reduction of scrubber SO2 emissions to the atmosphere

Net reduction in liquid sulfur feed volume

Net reduction in caustic consumption

Cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties for the period

1993-1998

Cost savings for reduction of liquid sulfur usage and

Cost savings for reduction in scrubber caustic usage

Test Methodology

Based on several discussions with Mr Majercik and Mr Vagner on

Wednesday 1 December we agreed to the following test plan to meet the test programs

The plan reflected what was technically feasible given the limitations of plantobjectives Specifically we agreed to vary theequipment and controls in the existing White Oil Plant

sulfur feed rate to the plant at rates ranging from 86 kghr to 120 kghr For each sulfur feed

rate condition the first bed inlet catalyst temperature was set to a reading that was considered optimal for that sulfur feed rate based upon the plant operators judgement Downstream

were determined by the inlet temperature ofcatalyst bed temperatures could not be varied and

the first bed

At the same time at each sulfur feed rate condition the caustic feed rate to the

was varied from 12 hr to 120 hr At each caustic rate the SO 2 concentration wasscrubber measured at the scrubber outlet to the atmosphere using the S02 analyzer provided by WEC

Figure 3 shows the location of the SO 2 measurement in relation to the scrubber From these an optimum caustic feed rate at eachoutlet SO 2 measurements we were able to determine

sulfur feed rate condition

measure aIn addition the scrubber was shut down at the end of each trial to

scrubber inlet concentration By taking both inlet and outlet SO 2 measurements for the Using these datascrubber the scrubber efficiency could be evaluated for each caustic rate

an overall assessment could also be made of the adequacy of the scrubber design to meet the

new permit emission limits for SO 2 from the scrubber given the existing converter catalyst

inlet loading to the scrubberperformance and resultant SO

Finally the scrubber inlet SO2 concentration measurement at each sulfur feed

an overall SO 2 balance around the catalytic converter Byrate could also be used to perform

5 11

43

RADIAN CORPORATION

performing this material balance the efficiency of the catalytic converter could be estimated and compared with expected design efficiency (conversion)

Following the test methodology described above live test trials were performed at sulfur feed rates of 86 90 100 106 and 120 kghr respectively First bed inlet catalyst temperatures were set at optimal conditions based upon operator judgement Generally the first bed inlet temperatures and the resultant converter temperature profile were consistent with literature values (400-430 C) for proper reaction kinetics and thermodynamic conversion

Within each trial the water rate to the scrubber was held approximately constant in the range of 15-18 1min The caustic feed rate however was varied from 12 to 120 lhr depending on the trial Scrubber outlet SO 2 concentrations were measured at each new caustic feed rate At the end of each trial a scrubber inlet SO 2 concentration was measured It should be noted that in all cases but one the inlet S02 was too high to be read on-scale by the analyzer For purposes of completing the SO 2 material balance around the catalytic converter and calciulating a converter efficiency we diluted the sample on the fifth trial (90 kghr sulfur) with air and obtained an on-scale reading

Test Results

The discussion of the test results is focused relative to our test objectives Test data sheets for each trial and graphs of the individual trials showing scrubber outlet SO 2

concentrations versus caustic feed rate are provided in Attachment B Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment C

Catalytic Converter Optimization and Efficiency

For catalytic converter efficiency we determined that the catalyst in the converter is achieving less than 70 conversion compared with a design conversion of 96 percent The sample calculation is shown as C-I in Attachment C The material balance which supports this converter efficiency calculation was performed for Trial No 5 at a sulfur feed rate of 90 kghr The off-scale measurements for inlet SO2 concentrations in Trial Nos 1-4 lend further support to the conclusion that the converter is operating well below the design efficiency

We were able to determine that the catalyst efficiency was generally low after the first four days of testing It was felt at the time of testing that small gains in converter efficiency (0-3) could be achieved by continuing the optimization tests However based upon such a low efficiency relative to design it was hypothesized that the catalyst was damaged by either poisoning aging or sintering Given the low efficiency the tests were terminated pending future resolution of the catalyst issue

6

RADIAN COItPORATION

Caustic Scrubber Optimization

While collecting the converter optimization data we were also collecting data

to optimize the caustic scrubber performance As discussed earlier we chose to vary fresh

caustic feed rate in each trial Figure 4 shows the correlation between caustic feed rate and

outlet SO2 emissions from the scrubber to the atmosphere Generally as liquid sulfur feed

rate to the plant increased the outlet SO 2 emissions from the scrubber also incresed at a

given caustic feed rate This observation is most evident on the graph at 40 Ihr caustic

Assuming a fairly constant scrubber efficiency this suggests tha no clear optimum sulfur feed

rate was found The inefficient converter passed more unreacted SO 2 with increasing sulfur

feed rate which in turn resulted in a higher outlet concentration of SO 2 from the scrubber

At each sulfur feed rate it was observed without exception that as caustic feed

rate increased outlet scrubber SO 2 emissions decreased From Figure 4 it appears that the

curve has two parts a steep decline in SO 2 emissions from 0-40 1hr caustic feed rate

Between 40 and 60 lhr depending upon the liquid sulfur feed rate the curve flattens out

From approximately 50 Ihr to 120 1hr caustic (maximum caustic feed pump rate) relative

SO emissions reductions are smaller per unit increase of caustic

The caustic scrubber efficiency ranges from an estimated 73 in Trial 5 at 40

Ihr caustic to 90-93 in Trials 1-4 Some sample calculations for scrubber efficiency are

provided as calculation C-2 in Attachment C Therefore it appears from the data set that the

scrubber can achieve good efficiency (gt90) However it is continuously being heavily

loaded with unconverted 302 from the catalytic converter

SO 2 Emissions Compliance

Achieving compliance with the new (June 1993) SO 2 scrubber emissions limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) will require that Petrochema generally increase the caustic feed

rate from typical levels of 12-20 Ihr to 60-70 lhr This represents a 250-400 increase in

the amount of caustic the plant will now use to achieve compliance for SO 2 emissions It also

should be noted that at these higher caustic feed levels Petiochema will achieve compliance

but not by much Figure 4 can be used as a SO 2 emissions compliance curve for the existing

catalyst in the SO 2 converter

Some preliminary calculations Radiaa performed (not shown) suggest that at

least two to three times the stoichiometric amount of caustic is necessary to achieve

compliance This further suggests that the inefficient SO2 converter may be overloading the

design capability of the caustic scrubber

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Despite the low converter efficiency the scrubber optimization tests

demonstrated a reduction of outlet SO emissions to the atmosphere from 10000 mgm3 (3836

ppmv) reported during our May 1993 visit and observed during our December 1993 visit to

31

44

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 5: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pursuant to the technical assistance program for Central and East Europeancountries funded by the U Agency for International Development the World Environment Center (WE(C) had organized a reconnaissance trip to PetrochemaDubova fiovak Rlepublic a manufacturer of lubricating oils located in the vestern most part of the Slovak Republic during May 9 1993 to May 13 1993

The WEC team and Petrochema management selecte J the White Oil Plant for the waste minimization demonstration project (WMDP) - he consulting engineer andthe volunteer expert identified two WMDP projects namely optimization of sulfur trioxide production and the other neutralization of Goudron sludge to reduce the sulfur dioxide emission thereby complying with the new regulatory permitrequirements The consulting engineer estimated that the regulatory penalty cost savings of $35000 can be achieved from both the WMDPs between the years 1993 - 1998

A project implementation trip to Petrochema was organized from December 1 to December 8 1993 The project team consisted of WEC staff Dr Bhushan Lodh and the consultants Mr Edward Andrechak and Mr James E Howes Jr from Radian Corporation

The following tasks were completed

o The sulfur dioxide analyzer was assembled calibrated and tested

o The sampling probe was installed at the exit duct of the caustic scrubber Tests were conducted at various sulfur feed rates to the sulfur dioxide generator and caustic feed rates to the scrubber The corresponding sulfur dioxide concentration was measured at the exit duct of the scrubber Sulfur dioxide concentration was also measured when caustic scrubber was not in operation

o Demonstration session and hands-on training were provided to Petrochema personnel to operate the sulfur dioxide analyzer The Petrochema training personnel included the varioi is department managerstechnicians and maintenance employees which also constituted the waste minimization committee (WMC) members

o Petrochema staff will conduct the tests as outlined by Radian Corporation to incinerate the Goudron sludge wastes and forward the data to Radian for analysis

2

Based upon the analysis of the test results collected the following are the conclusions and recommendations

1 Sulfur dioxide converter appears to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency resulting in high concentration of unconverted sulfur dioxide entering the caustic scrubber

2 The caustic scrubber efficiency is found to be greater than 90

3 At the existing plant conditions by burning liquid sulfur at the rate of 100 kg per hour and maintaining caustic rate in the scrubber between 60-70 liters per hour the sulfur dioxide concentration in the emission from the scrubber foulnd to be 960 ppmv which complies with the regulatory requirement Petrochema should operate the White Oil Plant at or near the above mentioned conditions This will result in a regulatory penalty cost savings of US $10000 for the period 1993 to 1998

4 It is recommended that Petrochema should change the catalyst in the sulfur dioxide converter which will result in approximately 120 ppmv sulfur dioxide emission from the White Oil Plant The plant will save annually US $10000 in liquid sulfur consumption and US $28000 to $35000 in caustic reduction

The calculated total annual cost savinc fjr the raw materials is more than US $45000 annually

5 Tiie low concentration of sulfur dioxide emission (120 ppmvj from the White Oil Plant due to new catalyst in the converter will enable to preserve the pristine nature of the two national parks in Dubova and a better environment It will also remove the potential obstacle to the tourism industry

6 It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at the exit section of the scrubber tc contain the unabsorbed sulfur trioxide mists

Seven incineration tests were conducted by Petrochema personnel using various mixtures of Goudronx sludge wastewater treatment sludge oily contaminated soil and sewage The data were transmitted to Radian Corporation for analysis and the results are presented in this report

The report recommends to neutralize the Goudron sludge wastes by combining with other alkaline wastes prior to incineration This will achieve the compliance with sulfur dioxide emission limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1154 ppmv) and save Petrochema from the sulfur dioxide emission penalty of approximately 775000

3

Slovak Korunas ($25000)

Please refer to consultant Radian Corporation report Section III

4

III RADIAN CORPORATION REPORT

5

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in the report is the professional opinion of the author and does not represent the official position of the Government of the United States or the World Environment Center

RADIAN CORPORATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO Dr Bhushan Lodh Project Manager World Environment Center

FROM Edward M Andrechak Radian Corporation

DATE 27 July 1994

SUBJECT Petrochema Waste Minimization Demonstration Program For SO2

Emissions Reduction--Final Report

10 INTRODUCTION

This technical memorandum summarizes the findings of our December 1993 visit to the Petrochema Dubova Oil Refinery in the Slovak Republic This was the second visit to Petrochema as part of the World Environment Centers (WEC) Waste Minimization Demonstration Program This memorandum also documents the results of test data collected by Petrochema in March 1994

In our initial visit in May 1993 we identified two separate waste minimization projects for the reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emissions (See the previous technical memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations [Radian 8 June 1993] for more detailed background information) Both projects are associated with the production of white oil The purpose of this second visit and the subsequent testing in March 1994 was to perform test measurements to quantify the projected SO2 emissions reductions and the associated economic savings from the implementation of these two projects

This document is organized by the following sections Section 20 presents a summary of the findings of the December visit and March testing Section 30 discusses the visit and testing logistics Section 40 presents the test program and resalts for optimizing

sulfur trioxide (SO 3) in the White Oil Plant and Section 50 presents the waste minimization program involving the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge Figures and tables referenced in the memorandum are attached Also attached are photographs of some of the

analytical equipment and of the PetrochemaRadian WEC team members (Attachment A) the test data collected during the December 1993 visit (Attachment B) sample calculations for the White Oil Plant optimization (Attachment C) test data collected in March 1994 (Attachment D) and sample calculations collected for Goudron sludge neutralization and incineration (Attachment E)

20 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

During our eight-day testing and training visit to the Petrochema Refinery in December 1993 the following was accomplished or determined

1 -7

RADIAN CORPORATION

A new S02 analyzer was installed in both the White Oil Plant and at Incinerator No 2 The analyzer worked successfully and provided accurate test data primarily for the optimization of S03 production in the White Oil Plant

Plant test data were collected in the White Oil Plant for both the

optimization of the SO 2 catalytic converter and the caustic scrubber

From our test results the catalyst in the converter appeared to be

deactivated achieving less than 70 conversion At the same time the

caustic scrubber appeared to be operating well achieving greater than

90 SO2 removal efficiency

Despite the heavy inlet loading of SO2 to the caustic scrubber in the

White Oil Plant compliance with the SO 2 scrubber emissions limit can

be achieved by significantly increasing the fresh caustic feed rate to the

scrubber

Overall White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75

reduction in SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber This

decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 tons of S02 annually

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst can reduce the caustic required for

S02 scrubber emissions compliance and achieve several other economic and pollution benefits These benefits may pay for the cost of new catalyst

Planning discussions were conducted with the Petrochema staff to

conduct Goudron sludge neutralization testing after the WECRadian team returned to the United States

Radian performed classroom and field training of the Petrochema staff

on the operation of the SO 2 analyzer This training should enable Petrochemas capable staff to conduct their own plant tests in the future

From the March 1994 tests conducted by Petrochema the following was accomplished or determined

Plant test data were collected to demonstrate the effectiveness of the

neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration

Neutralized Goudron sludge mixtures when burned demonstrated SO 2

emissions which were 72 less on average than previously burned unneutralized mixtures This decrease is equivalent to a reduction of

185 metric tons of SO annually

2

30

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 emissions uponNeutralized Goudron sludge mixtures yield average

incineration which comply with the incinerators emissions permit limit

VISIT AND TESTING LOGISTICS

The WEC team consisted of four members Dr Bhushan Lodh WEC Project

Manager Mr Edward Andrechak Radian Department Head Mr Jim Howes Radian Senior

Staff Scientist and Mrs Olga Hauskrechtovd Slovak Consultant

The facility visit took place from Wednesday 1 December through Wednesday

8 December 1993 During the facility visit and the collection of test data we worked with

various members of the Petrochema staff including but not limited to Mr Josef Surdb

Technical and Production Director Ms Maria BabiakovA Head of the Department of the

Mrs Halajovd Air Emissions Engineer Department of theEnvironmental Protection Mr Michael Majercik Head of the White Oil ProductionEnvironmental Protection

Department Mr Vagner Chief Technologist White Oil Production Department and Mr

Tibor Duris Head of Energy Department Photographs of the PetrochemaRadianWEC team

and some of the analytical equipment are presented in Attachment A

1 December 1993 the analyzer was unpacked and installed in the White OilOn From 2 December through 5 December test dataPlant in preparation for data colle-tion

were collected for the optimization of SO3 production and minimization of SO2 emissions in

the White Oil Plant On 6 December the WECRadianPetrochema team reviewed the

proposed test plan for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge (this testing was

conducted by the Petrochema staff in March 1994) On 6 and 7 December Jim Howes of

Radian conducted classroom and field training for the SO 2 analyzer which was used to collect On 8 December we met with Mr Jfnthe waste minimization test data for both projects

Matag General Director to present our preliminary visit findings

Returning to Bratislava on Thursday 9 December we met with Mr Ivan Sojka

Chief of Environmental Group and Mr Andrej Soltes Engineer at the Ministry of Economy

We also met with Mr Ivan Hejda Head of Chemia and Mr Lorento reiterate our findings Schulze and Mr Martin Brunovsky of US Agency for International Development (USAID)

to discuss the current status of our project at Petrochema and possible future action

As agreed during our December visit Petrochema staff completed a series of

incineration tests in March 1994 The purpose of these subsequent tests was to determine the

effectiveness of the neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration Petrochema forwarded the March test results to Radian for analysis in May

1994

3q

RADIAN CORPORATION

40 WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NOI OPTIMIZATION OF SO 3 PRODUCTION IN THE WHITE OIL PLANT

The optimization of SO3 production and its subsequent usage during white oil production involved testing the performance of two stages in the production process The

two-step performance test measured the efficiency of 1) the vanadium pentoxide (V205 ) conversion catalyst which converts S02 to S03 and 2) the caustic scrubber which captures unconverted SO2 at the end of the process line Figure 1 shows a simplified process flow of the overall white oil production process Figure 2 shows the process flow for the production

and consumption of SO 3 in the White Oil Plant

Step one involved a performance test conducted on the V20 5 conversion catalyst This catalyst converts SO2 into SO 3 for use in sulphonating white oil feedstock Unconverted SO 2 passes through the white oil production system and is treated in a caustic scrubber at the tail end of the plant The objective of this first step was to increase the conversion of SO 3 thereby decreasing the amount of unreacted SO 2 left to pass through the system to the scrubber Excessive unreacted SO 2 could potentially overwhelm the scrubbers design capability resulting in high SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Parameters which could be varied to optimize SO3 converter efficiency were sulfur feed rate inlet bed catalyst temperature system pressure air feed rate and residence time (by additional catalyst) Only sulfur feed rate and inlet bed catalyst temperature were varied during the December 1993 test program

Step two of this optimization project involved a performance test conducted on the caustic scrubber ensuring that unreacted SO2 emissions do not pass through the scrubber to the atmosphere The main parameter which could be varied to optimize caustic scrubber performance was the rate of fresh caustic fed to the scrubber

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the optimization of SO3 in the White Oil Plant are presented in the following sections

41 Test Program Objectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Optimize the production of SO 3 from SO 2 in the V20 5 catalytic converter

Optimize the caustic scrubber operation to minimize SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Demonstrate compliance with the recently received (June 1993) scrubber 3 emissions permit limit for SO of 2500 mgn

4O

--

42

RADIAN CORPORATION

If successful in optimizing the converter and the scrubber quantify the

following

Actual reduction of scrubber SO2 emissions to the atmosphere

Net reduction in liquid sulfur feed volume

Net reduction in caustic consumption

Cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties for the period

1993-1998

Cost savings for reduction of liquid sulfur usage and

Cost savings for reduction in scrubber caustic usage

Test Methodology

Based on several discussions with Mr Majercik and Mr Vagner on

Wednesday 1 December we agreed to the following test plan to meet the test programs

The plan reflected what was technically feasible given the limitations of plantobjectives Specifically we agreed to vary theequipment and controls in the existing White Oil Plant

sulfur feed rate to the plant at rates ranging from 86 kghr to 120 kghr For each sulfur feed

rate condition the first bed inlet catalyst temperature was set to a reading that was considered optimal for that sulfur feed rate based upon the plant operators judgement Downstream

were determined by the inlet temperature ofcatalyst bed temperatures could not be varied and

the first bed

At the same time at each sulfur feed rate condition the caustic feed rate to the

was varied from 12 hr to 120 hr At each caustic rate the SO 2 concentration wasscrubber measured at the scrubber outlet to the atmosphere using the S02 analyzer provided by WEC

Figure 3 shows the location of the SO 2 measurement in relation to the scrubber From these an optimum caustic feed rate at eachoutlet SO 2 measurements we were able to determine

sulfur feed rate condition

measure aIn addition the scrubber was shut down at the end of each trial to

scrubber inlet concentration By taking both inlet and outlet SO 2 measurements for the Using these datascrubber the scrubber efficiency could be evaluated for each caustic rate

an overall assessment could also be made of the adequacy of the scrubber design to meet the

new permit emission limits for SO 2 from the scrubber given the existing converter catalyst

inlet loading to the scrubberperformance and resultant SO

Finally the scrubber inlet SO2 concentration measurement at each sulfur feed

an overall SO 2 balance around the catalytic converter Byrate could also be used to perform

5 11

43

RADIAN CORPORATION

performing this material balance the efficiency of the catalytic converter could be estimated and compared with expected design efficiency (conversion)

Following the test methodology described above live test trials were performed at sulfur feed rates of 86 90 100 106 and 120 kghr respectively First bed inlet catalyst temperatures were set at optimal conditions based upon operator judgement Generally the first bed inlet temperatures and the resultant converter temperature profile were consistent with literature values (400-430 C) for proper reaction kinetics and thermodynamic conversion

Within each trial the water rate to the scrubber was held approximately constant in the range of 15-18 1min The caustic feed rate however was varied from 12 to 120 lhr depending on the trial Scrubber outlet SO 2 concentrations were measured at each new caustic feed rate At the end of each trial a scrubber inlet SO 2 concentration was measured It should be noted that in all cases but one the inlet S02 was too high to be read on-scale by the analyzer For purposes of completing the SO 2 material balance around the catalytic converter and calciulating a converter efficiency we diluted the sample on the fifth trial (90 kghr sulfur) with air and obtained an on-scale reading

Test Results

The discussion of the test results is focused relative to our test objectives Test data sheets for each trial and graphs of the individual trials showing scrubber outlet SO 2

concentrations versus caustic feed rate are provided in Attachment B Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment C

Catalytic Converter Optimization and Efficiency

For catalytic converter efficiency we determined that the catalyst in the converter is achieving less than 70 conversion compared with a design conversion of 96 percent The sample calculation is shown as C-I in Attachment C The material balance which supports this converter efficiency calculation was performed for Trial No 5 at a sulfur feed rate of 90 kghr The off-scale measurements for inlet SO2 concentrations in Trial Nos 1-4 lend further support to the conclusion that the converter is operating well below the design efficiency

We were able to determine that the catalyst efficiency was generally low after the first four days of testing It was felt at the time of testing that small gains in converter efficiency (0-3) could be achieved by continuing the optimization tests However based upon such a low efficiency relative to design it was hypothesized that the catalyst was damaged by either poisoning aging or sintering Given the low efficiency the tests were terminated pending future resolution of the catalyst issue

6

RADIAN COItPORATION

Caustic Scrubber Optimization

While collecting the converter optimization data we were also collecting data

to optimize the caustic scrubber performance As discussed earlier we chose to vary fresh

caustic feed rate in each trial Figure 4 shows the correlation between caustic feed rate and

outlet SO2 emissions from the scrubber to the atmosphere Generally as liquid sulfur feed

rate to the plant increased the outlet SO 2 emissions from the scrubber also incresed at a

given caustic feed rate This observation is most evident on the graph at 40 Ihr caustic

Assuming a fairly constant scrubber efficiency this suggests tha no clear optimum sulfur feed

rate was found The inefficient converter passed more unreacted SO 2 with increasing sulfur

feed rate which in turn resulted in a higher outlet concentration of SO 2 from the scrubber

At each sulfur feed rate it was observed without exception that as caustic feed

rate increased outlet scrubber SO 2 emissions decreased From Figure 4 it appears that the

curve has two parts a steep decline in SO 2 emissions from 0-40 1hr caustic feed rate

Between 40 and 60 lhr depending upon the liquid sulfur feed rate the curve flattens out

From approximately 50 Ihr to 120 1hr caustic (maximum caustic feed pump rate) relative

SO emissions reductions are smaller per unit increase of caustic

The caustic scrubber efficiency ranges from an estimated 73 in Trial 5 at 40

Ihr caustic to 90-93 in Trials 1-4 Some sample calculations for scrubber efficiency are

provided as calculation C-2 in Attachment C Therefore it appears from the data set that the

scrubber can achieve good efficiency (gt90) However it is continuously being heavily

loaded with unconverted 302 from the catalytic converter

SO 2 Emissions Compliance

Achieving compliance with the new (June 1993) SO 2 scrubber emissions limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) will require that Petrochema generally increase the caustic feed

rate from typical levels of 12-20 Ihr to 60-70 lhr This represents a 250-400 increase in

the amount of caustic the plant will now use to achieve compliance for SO 2 emissions It also

should be noted that at these higher caustic feed levels Petiochema will achieve compliance

but not by much Figure 4 can be used as a SO 2 emissions compliance curve for the existing

catalyst in the SO 2 converter

Some preliminary calculations Radiaa performed (not shown) suggest that at

least two to three times the stoichiometric amount of caustic is necessary to achieve

compliance This further suggests that the inefficient SO2 converter may be overloading the

design capability of the caustic scrubber

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Despite the low converter efficiency the scrubber optimization tests

demonstrated a reduction of outlet SO emissions to the atmosphere from 10000 mgm3 (3836

ppmv) reported during our May 1993 visit and observed during our December 1993 visit to

31

44

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 6: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

Based upon the analysis of the test results collected the following are the conclusions and recommendations

1 Sulfur dioxide converter appears to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency resulting in high concentration of unconverted sulfur dioxide entering the caustic scrubber

2 The caustic scrubber efficiency is found to be greater than 90

3 At the existing plant conditions by burning liquid sulfur at the rate of 100 kg per hour and maintaining caustic rate in the scrubber between 60-70 liters per hour the sulfur dioxide concentration in the emission from the scrubber foulnd to be 960 ppmv which complies with the regulatory requirement Petrochema should operate the White Oil Plant at or near the above mentioned conditions This will result in a regulatory penalty cost savings of US $10000 for the period 1993 to 1998

4 It is recommended that Petrochema should change the catalyst in the sulfur dioxide converter which will result in approximately 120 ppmv sulfur dioxide emission from the White Oil Plant The plant will save annually US $10000 in liquid sulfur consumption and US $28000 to $35000 in caustic reduction

The calculated total annual cost savinc fjr the raw materials is more than US $45000 annually

5 Tiie low concentration of sulfur dioxide emission (120 ppmvj from the White Oil Plant due to new catalyst in the converter will enable to preserve the pristine nature of the two national parks in Dubova and a better environment It will also remove the potential obstacle to the tourism industry

6 It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at the exit section of the scrubber tc contain the unabsorbed sulfur trioxide mists

Seven incineration tests were conducted by Petrochema personnel using various mixtures of Goudronx sludge wastewater treatment sludge oily contaminated soil and sewage The data were transmitted to Radian Corporation for analysis and the results are presented in this report

The report recommends to neutralize the Goudron sludge wastes by combining with other alkaline wastes prior to incineration This will achieve the compliance with sulfur dioxide emission limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1154 ppmv) and save Petrochema from the sulfur dioxide emission penalty of approximately 775000

3

Slovak Korunas ($25000)

Please refer to consultant Radian Corporation report Section III

4

III RADIAN CORPORATION REPORT

5

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in the report is the professional opinion of the author and does not represent the official position of the Government of the United States or the World Environment Center

RADIAN CORPORATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO Dr Bhushan Lodh Project Manager World Environment Center

FROM Edward M Andrechak Radian Corporation

DATE 27 July 1994

SUBJECT Petrochema Waste Minimization Demonstration Program For SO2

Emissions Reduction--Final Report

10 INTRODUCTION

This technical memorandum summarizes the findings of our December 1993 visit to the Petrochema Dubova Oil Refinery in the Slovak Republic This was the second visit to Petrochema as part of the World Environment Centers (WEC) Waste Minimization Demonstration Program This memorandum also documents the results of test data collected by Petrochema in March 1994

In our initial visit in May 1993 we identified two separate waste minimization projects for the reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emissions (See the previous technical memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations [Radian 8 June 1993] for more detailed background information) Both projects are associated with the production of white oil The purpose of this second visit and the subsequent testing in March 1994 was to perform test measurements to quantify the projected SO2 emissions reductions and the associated economic savings from the implementation of these two projects

This document is organized by the following sections Section 20 presents a summary of the findings of the December visit and March testing Section 30 discusses the visit and testing logistics Section 40 presents the test program and resalts for optimizing

sulfur trioxide (SO 3) in the White Oil Plant and Section 50 presents the waste minimization program involving the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge Figures and tables referenced in the memorandum are attached Also attached are photographs of some of the

analytical equipment and of the PetrochemaRadian WEC team members (Attachment A) the test data collected during the December 1993 visit (Attachment B) sample calculations for the White Oil Plant optimization (Attachment C) test data collected in March 1994 (Attachment D) and sample calculations collected for Goudron sludge neutralization and incineration (Attachment E)

20 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

During our eight-day testing and training visit to the Petrochema Refinery in December 1993 the following was accomplished or determined

1 -7

RADIAN CORPORATION

A new S02 analyzer was installed in both the White Oil Plant and at Incinerator No 2 The analyzer worked successfully and provided accurate test data primarily for the optimization of S03 production in the White Oil Plant

Plant test data were collected in the White Oil Plant for both the

optimization of the SO 2 catalytic converter and the caustic scrubber

From our test results the catalyst in the converter appeared to be

deactivated achieving less than 70 conversion At the same time the

caustic scrubber appeared to be operating well achieving greater than

90 SO2 removal efficiency

Despite the heavy inlet loading of SO2 to the caustic scrubber in the

White Oil Plant compliance with the SO 2 scrubber emissions limit can

be achieved by significantly increasing the fresh caustic feed rate to the

scrubber

Overall White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75

reduction in SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber This

decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 tons of S02 annually

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst can reduce the caustic required for

S02 scrubber emissions compliance and achieve several other economic and pollution benefits These benefits may pay for the cost of new catalyst

Planning discussions were conducted with the Petrochema staff to

conduct Goudron sludge neutralization testing after the WECRadian team returned to the United States

Radian performed classroom and field training of the Petrochema staff

on the operation of the SO 2 analyzer This training should enable Petrochemas capable staff to conduct their own plant tests in the future

From the March 1994 tests conducted by Petrochema the following was accomplished or determined

Plant test data were collected to demonstrate the effectiveness of the

neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration

Neutralized Goudron sludge mixtures when burned demonstrated SO 2

emissions which were 72 less on average than previously burned unneutralized mixtures This decrease is equivalent to a reduction of

185 metric tons of SO annually

2

30

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 emissions uponNeutralized Goudron sludge mixtures yield average

incineration which comply with the incinerators emissions permit limit

VISIT AND TESTING LOGISTICS

The WEC team consisted of four members Dr Bhushan Lodh WEC Project

Manager Mr Edward Andrechak Radian Department Head Mr Jim Howes Radian Senior

Staff Scientist and Mrs Olga Hauskrechtovd Slovak Consultant

The facility visit took place from Wednesday 1 December through Wednesday

8 December 1993 During the facility visit and the collection of test data we worked with

various members of the Petrochema staff including but not limited to Mr Josef Surdb

Technical and Production Director Ms Maria BabiakovA Head of the Department of the

Mrs Halajovd Air Emissions Engineer Department of theEnvironmental Protection Mr Michael Majercik Head of the White Oil ProductionEnvironmental Protection

Department Mr Vagner Chief Technologist White Oil Production Department and Mr

Tibor Duris Head of Energy Department Photographs of the PetrochemaRadianWEC team

and some of the analytical equipment are presented in Attachment A

1 December 1993 the analyzer was unpacked and installed in the White OilOn From 2 December through 5 December test dataPlant in preparation for data colle-tion

were collected for the optimization of SO3 production and minimization of SO2 emissions in

the White Oil Plant On 6 December the WECRadianPetrochema team reviewed the

proposed test plan for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge (this testing was

conducted by the Petrochema staff in March 1994) On 6 and 7 December Jim Howes of

Radian conducted classroom and field training for the SO 2 analyzer which was used to collect On 8 December we met with Mr Jfnthe waste minimization test data for both projects

Matag General Director to present our preliminary visit findings

Returning to Bratislava on Thursday 9 December we met with Mr Ivan Sojka

Chief of Environmental Group and Mr Andrej Soltes Engineer at the Ministry of Economy

We also met with Mr Ivan Hejda Head of Chemia and Mr Lorento reiterate our findings Schulze and Mr Martin Brunovsky of US Agency for International Development (USAID)

to discuss the current status of our project at Petrochema and possible future action

As agreed during our December visit Petrochema staff completed a series of

incineration tests in March 1994 The purpose of these subsequent tests was to determine the

effectiveness of the neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration Petrochema forwarded the March test results to Radian for analysis in May

1994

3q

RADIAN CORPORATION

40 WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NOI OPTIMIZATION OF SO 3 PRODUCTION IN THE WHITE OIL PLANT

The optimization of SO3 production and its subsequent usage during white oil production involved testing the performance of two stages in the production process The

two-step performance test measured the efficiency of 1) the vanadium pentoxide (V205 ) conversion catalyst which converts S02 to S03 and 2) the caustic scrubber which captures unconverted SO2 at the end of the process line Figure 1 shows a simplified process flow of the overall white oil production process Figure 2 shows the process flow for the production

and consumption of SO 3 in the White Oil Plant

Step one involved a performance test conducted on the V20 5 conversion catalyst This catalyst converts SO2 into SO 3 for use in sulphonating white oil feedstock Unconverted SO 2 passes through the white oil production system and is treated in a caustic scrubber at the tail end of the plant The objective of this first step was to increase the conversion of SO 3 thereby decreasing the amount of unreacted SO 2 left to pass through the system to the scrubber Excessive unreacted SO 2 could potentially overwhelm the scrubbers design capability resulting in high SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Parameters which could be varied to optimize SO3 converter efficiency were sulfur feed rate inlet bed catalyst temperature system pressure air feed rate and residence time (by additional catalyst) Only sulfur feed rate and inlet bed catalyst temperature were varied during the December 1993 test program

Step two of this optimization project involved a performance test conducted on the caustic scrubber ensuring that unreacted SO2 emissions do not pass through the scrubber to the atmosphere The main parameter which could be varied to optimize caustic scrubber performance was the rate of fresh caustic fed to the scrubber

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the optimization of SO3 in the White Oil Plant are presented in the following sections

41 Test Program Objectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Optimize the production of SO 3 from SO 2 in the V20 5 catalytic converter

Optimize the caustic scrubber operation to minimize SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Demonstrate compliance with the recently received (June 1993) scrubber 3 emissions permit limit for SO of 2500 mgn

4O

--

42

RADIAN CORPORATION

If successful in optimizing the converter and the scrubber quantify the

following

Actual reduction of scrubber SO2 emissions to the atmosphere

Net reduction in liquid sulfur feed volume

Net reduction in caustic consumption

Cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties for the period

1993-1998

Cost savings for reduction of liquid sulfur usage and

Cost savings for reduction in scrubber caustic usage

Test Methodology

Based on several discussions with Mr Majercik and Mr Vagner on

Wednesday 1 December we agreed to the following test plan to meet the test programs

The plan reflected what was technically feasible given the limitations of plantobjectives Specifically we agreed to vary theequipment and controls in the existing White Oil Plant

sulfur feed rate to the plant at rates ranging from 86 kghr to 120 kghr For each sulfur feed

rate condition the first bed inlet catalyst temperature was set to a reading that was considered optimal for that sulfur feed rate based upon the plant operators judgement Downstream

were determined by the inlet temperature ofcatalyst bed temperatures could not be varied and

the first bed

At the same time at each sulfur feed rate condition the caustic feed rate to the

was varied from 12 hr to 120 hr At each caustic rate the SO 2 concentration wasscrubber measured at the scrubber outlet to the atmosphere using the S02 analyzer provided by WEC

Figure 3 shows the location of the SO 2 measurement in relation to the scrubber From these an optimum caustic feed rate at eachoutlet SO 2 measurements we were able to determine

sulfur feed rate condition

measure aIn addition the scrubber was shut down at the end of each trial to

scrubber inlet concentration By taking both inlet and outlet SO 2 measurements for the Using these datascrubber the scrubber efficiency could be evaluated for each caustic rate

an overall assessment could also be made of the adequacy of the scrubber design to meet the

new permit emission limits for SO 2 from the scrubber given the existing converter catalyst

inlet loading to the scrubberperformance and resultant SO

Finally the scrubber inlet SO2 concentration measurement at each sulfur feed

an overall SO 2 balance around the catalytic converter Byrate could also be used to perform

5 11

43

RADIAN CORPORATION

performing this material balance the efficiency of the catalytic converter could be estimated and compared with expected design efficiency (conversion)

Following the test methodology described above live test trials were performed at sulfur feed rates of 86 90 100 106 and 120 kghr respectively First bed inlet catalyst temperatures were set at optimal conditions based upon operator judgement Generally the first bed inlet temperatures and the resultant converter temperature profile were consistent with literature values (400-430 C) for proper reaction kinetics and thermodynamic conversion

Within each trial the water rate to the scrubber was held approximately constant in the range of 15-18 1min The caustic feed rate however was varied from 12 to 120 lhr depending on the trial Scrubber outlet SO 2 concentrations were measured at each new caustic feed rate At the end of each trial a scrubber inlet SO 2 concentration was measured It should be noted that in all cases but one the inlet S02 was too high to be read on-scale by the analyzer For purposes of completing the SO 2 material balance around the catalytic converter and calciulating a converter efficiency we diluted the sample on the fifth trial (90 kghr sulfur) with air and obtained an on-scale reading

Test Results

The discussion of the test results is focused relative to our test objectives Test data sheets for each trial and graphs of the individual trials showing scrubber outlet SO 2

concentrations versus caustic feed rate are provided in Attachment B Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment C

Catalytic Converter Optimization and Efficiency

For catalytic converter efficiency we determined that the catalyst in the converter is achieving less than 70 conversion compared with a design conversion of 96 percent The sample calculation is shown as C-I in Attachment C The material balance which supports this converter efficiency calculation was performed for Trial No 5 at a sulfur feed rate of 90 kghr The off-scale measurements for inlet SO2 concentrations in Trial Nos 1-4 lend further support to the conclusion that the converter is operating well below the design efficiency

We were able to determine that the catalyst efficiency was generally low after the first four days of testing It was felt at the time of testing that small gains in converter efficiency (0-3) could be achieved by continuing the optimization tests However based upon such a low efficiency relative to design it was hypothesized that the catalyst was damaged by either poisoning aging or sintering Given the low efficiency the tests were terminated pending future resolution of the catalyst issue

6

RADIAN COItPORATION

Caustic Scrubber Optimization

While collecting the converter optimization data we were also collecting data

to optimize the caustic scrubber performance As discussed earlier we chose to vary fresh

caustic feed rate in each trial Figure 4 shows the correlation between caustic feed rate and

outlet SO2 emissions from the scrubber to the atmosphere Generally as liquid sulfur feed

rate to the plant increased the outlet SO 2 emissions from the scrubber also incresed at a

given caustic feed rate This observation is most evident on the graph at 40 Ihr caustic

Assuming a fairly constant scrubber efficiency this suggests tha no clear optimum sulfur feed

rate was found The inefficient converter passed more unreacted SO 2 with increasing sulfur

feed rate which in turn resulted in a higher outlet concentration of SO 2 from the scrubber

At each sulfur feed rate it was observed without exception that as caustic feed

rate increased outlet scrubber SO 2 emissions decreased From Figure 4 it appears that the

curve has two parts a steep decline in SO 2 emissions from 0-40 1hr caustic feed rate

Between 40 and 60 lhr depending upon the liquid sulfur feed rate the curve flattens out

From approximately 50 Ihr to 120 1hr caustic (maximum caustic feed pump rate) relative

SO emissions reductions are smaller per unit increase of caustic

The caustic scrubber efficiency ranges from an estimated 73 in Trial 5 at 40

Ihr caustic to 90-93 in Trials 1-4 Some sample calculations for scrubber efficiency are

provided as calculation C-2 in Attachment C Therefore it appears from the data set that the

scrubber can achieve good efficiency (gt90) However it is continuously being heavily

loaded with unconverted 302 from the catalytic converter

SO 2 Emissions Compliance

Achieving compliance with the new (June 1993) SO 2 scrubber emissions limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) will require that Petrochema generally increase the caustic feed

rate from typical levels of 12-20 Ihr to 60-70 lhr This represents a 250-400 increase in

the amount of caustic the plant will now use to achieve compliance for SO 2 emissions It also

should be noted that at these higher caustic feed levels Petiochema will achieve compliance

but not by much Figure 4 can be used as a SO 2 emissions compliance curve for the existing

catalyst in the SO 2 converter

Some preliminary calculations Radiaa performed (not shown) suggest that at

least two to three times the stoichiometric amount of caustic is necessary to achieve

compliance This further suggests that the inefficient SO2 converter may be overloading the

design capability of the caustic scrubber

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Despite the low converter efficiency the scrubber optimization tests

demonstrated a reduction of outlet SO emissions to the atmosphere from 10000 mgm3 (3836

ppmv) reported during our May 1993 visit and observed during our December 1993 visit to

31

44

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 7: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

Slovak Korunas ($25000)

Please refer to consultant Radian Corporation report Section III

4

III RADIAN CORPORATION REPORT

5

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in the report is the professional opinion of the author and does not represent the official position of the Government of the United States or the World Environment Center

RADIAN CORPORATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO Dr Bhushan Lodh Project Manager World Environment Center

FROM Edward M Andrechak Radian Corporation

DATE 27 July 1994

SUBJECT Petrochema Waste Minimization Demonstration Program For SO2

Emissions Reduction--Final Report

10 INTRODUCTION

This technical memorandum summarizes the findings of our December 1993 visit to the Petrochema Dubova Oil Refinery in the Slovak Republic This was the second visit to Petrochema as part of the World Environment Centers (WEC) Waste Minimization Demonstration Program This memorandum also documents the results of test data collected by Petrochema in March 1994

In our initial visit in May 1993 we identified two separate waste minimization projects for the reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emissions (See the previous technical memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations [Radian 8 June 1993] for more detailed background information) Both projects are associated with the production of white oil The purpose of this second visit and the subsequent testing in March 1994 was to perform test measurements to quantify the projected SO2 emissions reductions and the associated economic savings from the implementation of these two projects

This document is organized by the following sections Section 20 presents a summary of the findings of the December visit and March testing Section 30 discusses the visit and testing logistics Section 40 presents the test program and resalts for optimizing

sulfur trioxide (SO 3) in the White Oil Plant and Section 50 presents the waste minimization program involving the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge Figures and tables referenced in the memorandum are attached Also attached are photographs of some of the

analytical equipment and of the PetrochemaRadian WEC team members (Attachment A) the test data collected during the December 1993 visit (Attachment B) sample calculations for the White Oil Plant optimization (Attachment C) test data collected in March 1994 (Attachment D) and sample calculations collected for Goudron sludge neutralization and incineration (Attachment E)

20 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

During our eight-day testing and training visit to the Petrochema Refinery in December 1993 the following was accomplished or determined

1 -7

RADIAN CORPORATION

A new S02 analyzer was installed in both the White Oil Plant and at Incinerator No 2 The analyzer worked successfully and provided accurate test data primarily for the optimization of S03 production in the White Oil Plant

Plant test data were collected in the White Oil Plant for both the

optimization of the SO 2 catalytic converter and the caustic scrubber

From our test results the catalyst in the converter appeared to be

deactivated achieving less than 70 conversion At the same time the

caustic scrubber appeared to be operating well achieving greater than

90 SO2 removal efficiency

Despite the heavy inlet loading of SO2 to the caustic scrubber in the

White Oil Plant compliance with the SO 2 scrubber emissions limit can

be achieved by significantly increasing the fresh caustic feed rate to the

scrubber

Overall White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75

reduction in SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber This

decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 tons of S02 annually

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst can reduce the caustic required for

S02 scrubber emissions compliance and achieve several other economic and pollution benefits These benefits may pay for the cost of new catalyst

Planning discussions were conducted with the Petrochema staff to

conduct Goudron sludge neutralization testing after the WECRadian team returned to the United States

Radian performed classroom and field training of the Petrochema staff

on the operation of the SO 2 analyzer This training should enable Petrochemas capable staff to conduct their own plant tests in the future

From the March 1994 tests conducted by Petrochema the following was accomplished or determined

Plant test data were collected to demonstrate the effectiveness of the

neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration

Neutralized Goudron sludge mixtures when burned demonstrated SO 2

emissions which were 72 less on average than previously burned unneutralized mixtures This decrease is equivalent to a reduction of

185 metric tons of SO annually

2

30

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 emissions uponNeutralized Goudron sludge mixtures yield average

incineration which comply with the incinerators emissions permit limit

VISIT AND TESTING LOGISTICS

The WEC team consisted of four members Dr Bhushan Lodh WEC Project

Manager Mr Edward Andrechak Radian Department Head Mr Jim Howes Radian Senior

Staff Scientist and Mrs Olga Hauskrechtovd Slovak Consultant

The facility visit took place from Wednesday 1 December through Wednesday

8 December 1993 During the facility visit and the collection of test data we worked with

various members of the Petrochema staff including but not limited to Mr Josef Surdb

Technical and Production Director Ms Maria BabiakovA Head of the Department of the

Mrs Halajovd Air Emissions Engineer Department of theEnvironmental Protection Mr Michael Majercik Head of the White Oil ProductionEnvironmental Protection

Department Mr Vagner Chief Technologist White Oil Production Department and Mr

Tibor Duris Head of Energy Department Photographs of the PetrochemaRadianWEC team

and some of the analytical equipment are presented in Attachment A

1 December 1993 the analyzer was unpacked and installed in the White OilOn From 2 December through 5 December test dataPlant in preparation for data colle-tion

were collected for the optimization of SO3 production and minimization of SO2 emissions in

the White Oil Plant On 6 December the WECRadianPetrochema team reviewed the

proposed test plan for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge (this testing was

conducted by the Petrochema staff in March 1994) On 6 and 7 December Jim Howes of

Radian conducted classroom and field training for the SO 2 analyzer which was used to collect On 8 December we met with Mr Jfnthe waste minimization test data for both projects

Matag General Director to present our preliminary visit findings

Returning to Bratislava on Thursday 9 December we met with Mr Ivan Sojka

Chief of Environmental Group and Mr Andrej Soltes Engineer at the Ministry of Economy

We also met with Mr Ivan Hejda Head of Chemia and Mr Lorento reiterate our findings Schulze and Mr Martin Brunovsky of US Agency for International Development (USAID)

to discuss the current status of our project at Petrochema and possible future action

As agreed during our December visit Petrochema staff completed a series of

incineration tests in March 1994 The purpose of these subsequent tests was to determine the

effectiveness of the neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration Petrochema forwarded the March test results to Radian for analysis in May

1994

3q

RADIAN CORPORATION

40 WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NOI OPTIMIZATION OF SO 3 PRODUCTION IN THE WHITE OIL PLANT

The optimization of SO3 production and its subsequent usage during white oil production involved testing the performance of two stages in the production process The

two-step performance test measured the efficiency of 1) the vanadium pentoxide (V205 ) conversion catalyst which converts S02 to S03 and 2) the caustic scrubber which captures unconverted SO2 at the end of the process line Figure 1 shows a simplified process flow of the overall white oil production process Figure 2 shows the process flow for the production

and consumption of SO 3 in the White Oil Plant

Step one involved a performance test conducted on the V20 5 conversion catalyst This catalyst converts SO2 into SO 3 for use in sulphonating white oil feedstock Unconverted SO 2 passes through the white oil production system and is treated in a caustic scrubber at the tail end of the plant The objective of this first step was to increase the conversion of SO 3 thereby decreasing the amount of unreacted SO 2 left to pass through the system to the scrubber Excessive unreacted SO 2 could potentially overwhelm the scrubbers design capability resulting in high SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Parameters which could be varied to optimize SO3 converter efficiency were sulfur feed rate inlet bed catalyst temperature system pressure air feed rate and residence time (by additional catalyst) Only sulfur feed rate and inlet bed catalyst temperature were varied during the December 1993 test program

Step two of this optimization project involved a performance test conducted on the caustic scrubber ensuring that unreacted SO2 emissions do not pass through the scrubber to the atmosphere The main parameter which could be varied to optimize caustic scrubber performance was the rate of fresh caustic fed to the scrubber

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the optimization of SO3 in the White Oil Plant are presented in the following sections

41 Test Program Objectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Optimize the production of SO 3 from SO 2 in the V20 5 catalytic converter

Optimize the caustic scrubber operation to minimize SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Demonstrate compliance with the recently received (June 1993) scrubber 3 emissions permit limit for SO of 2500 mgn

4O

--

42

RADIAN CORPORATION

If successful in optimizing the converter and the scrubber quantify the

following

Actual reduction of scrubber SO2 emissions to the atmosphere

Net reduction in liquid sulfur feed volume

Net reduction in caustic consumption

Cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties for the period

1993-1998

Cost savings for reduction of liquid sulfur usage and

Cost savings for reduction in scrubber caustic usage

Test Methodology

Based on several discussions with Mr Majercik and Mr Vagner on

Wednesday 1 December we agreed to the following test plan to meet the test programs

The plan reflected what was technically feasible given the limitations of plantobjectives Specifically we agreed to vary theequipment and controls in the existing White Oil Plant

sulfur feed rate to the plant at rates ranging from 86 kghr to 120 kghr For each sulfur feed

rate condition the first bed inlet catalyst temperature was set to a reading that was considered optimal for that sulfur feed rate based upon the plant operators judgement Downstream

were determined by the inlet temperature ofcatalyst bed temperatures could not be varied and

the first bed

At the same time at each sulfur feed rate condition the caustic feed rate to the

was varied from 12 hr to 120 hr At each caustic rate the SO 2 concentration wasscrubber measured at the scrubber outlet to the atmosphere using the S02 analyzer provided by WEC

Figure 3 shows the location of the SO 2 measurement in relation to the scrubber From these an optimum caustic feed rate at eachoutlet SO 2 measurements we were able to determine

sulfur feed rate condition

measure aIn addition the scrubber was shut down at the end of each trial to

scrubber inlet concentration By taking both inlet and outlet SO 2 measurements for the Using these datascrubber the scrubber efficiency could be evaluated for each caustic rate

an overall assessment could also be made of the adequacy of the scrubber design to meet the

new permit emission limits for SO 2 from the scrubber given the existing converter catalyst

inlet loading to the scrubberperformance and resultant SO

Finally the scrubber inlet SO2 concentration measurement at each sulfur feed

an overall SO 2 balance around the catalytic converter Byrate could also be used to perform

5 11

43

RADIAN CORPORATION

performing this material balance the efficiency of the catalytic converter could be estimated and compared with expected design efficiency (conversion)

Following the test methodology described above live test trials were performed at sulfur feed rates of 86 90 100 106 and 120 kghr respectively First bed inlet catalyst temperatures were set at optimal conditions based upon operator judgement Generally the first bed inlet temperatures and the resultant converter temperature profile were consistent with literature values (400-430 C) for proper reaction kinetics and thermodynamic conversion

Within each trial the water rate to the scrubber was held approximately constant in the range of 15-18 1min The caustic feed rate however was varied from 12 to 120 lhr depending on the trial Scrubber outlet SO 2 concentrations were measured at each new caustic feed rate At the end of each trial a scrubber inlet SO 2 concentration was measured It should be noted that in all cases but one the inlet S02 was too high to be read on-scale by the analyzer For purposes of completing the SO 2 material balance around the catalytic converter and calciulating a converter efficiency we diluted the sample on the fifth trial (90 kghr sulfur) with air and obtained an on-scale reading

Test Results

The discussion of the test results is focused relative to our test objectives Test data sheets for each trial and graphs of the individual trials showing scrubber outlet SO 2

concentrations versus caustic feed rate are provided in Attachment B Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment C

Catalytic Converter Optimization and Efficiency

For catalytic converter efficiency we determined that the catalyst in the converter is achieving less than 70 conversion compared with a design conversion of 96 percent The sample calculation is shown as C-I in Attachment C The material balance which supports this converter efficiency calculation was performed for Trial No 5 at a sulfur feed rate of 90 kghr The off-scale measurements for inlet SO2 concentrations in Trial Nos 1-4 lend further support to the conclusion that the converter is operating well below the design efficiency

We were able to determine that the catalyst efficiency was generally low after the first four days of testing It was felt at the time of testing that small gains in converter efficiency (0-3) could be achieved by continuing the optimization tests However based upon such a low efficiency relative to design it was hypothesized that the catalyst was damaged by either poisoning aging or sintering Given the low efficiency the tests were terminated pending future resolution of the catalyst issue

6

RADIAN COItPORATION

Caustic Scrubber Optimization

While collecting the converter optimization data we were also collecting data

to optimize the caustic scrubber performance As discussed earlier we chose to vary fresh

caustic feed rate in each trial Figure 4 shows the correlation between caustic feed rate and

outlet SO2 emissions from the scrubber to the atmosphere Generally as liquid sulfur feed

rate to the plant increased the outlet SO 2 emissions from the scrubber also incresed at a

given caustic feed rate This observation is most evident on the graph at 40 Ihr caustic

Assuming a fairly constant scrubber efficiency this suggests tha no clear optimum sulfur feed

rate was found The inefficient converter passed more unreacted SO 2 with increasing sulfur

feed rate which in turn resulted in a higher outlet concentration of SO 2 from the scrubber

At each sulfur feed rate it was observed without exception that as caustic feed

rate increased outlet scrubber SO 2 emissions decreased From Figure 4 it appears that the

curve has two parts a steep decline in SO 2 emissions from 0-40 1hr caustic feed rate

Between 40 and 60 lhr depending upon the liquid sulfur feed rate the curve flattens out

From approximately 50 Ihr to 120 1hr caustic (maximum caustic feed pump rate) relative

SO emissions reductions are smaller per unit increase of caustic

The caustic scrubber efficiency ranges from an estimated 73 in Trial 5 at 40

Ihr caustic to 90-93 in Trials 1-4 Some sample calculations for scrubber efficiency are

provided as calculation C-2 in Attachment C Therefore it appears from the data set that the

scrubber can achieve good efficiency (gt90) However it is continuously being heavily

loaded with unconverted 302 from the catalytic converter

SO 2 Emissions Compliance

Achieving compliance with the new (June 1993) SO 2 scrubber emissions limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) will require that Petrochema generally increase the caustic feed

rate from typical levels of 12-20 Ihr to 60-70 lhr This represents a 250-400 increase in

the amount of caustic the plant will now use to achieve compliance for SO 2 emissions It also

should be noted that at these higher caustic feed levels Petiochema will achieve compliance

but not by much Figure 4 can be used as a SO 2 emissions compliance curve for the existing

catalyst in the SO 2 converter

Some preliminary calculations Radiaa performed (not shown) suggest that at

least two to three times the stoichiometric amount of caustic is necessary to achieve

compliance This further suggests that the inefficient SO2 converter may be overloading the

design capability of the caustic scrubber

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Despite the low converter efficiency the scrubber optimization tests

demonstrated a reduction of outlet SO emissions to the atmosphere from 10000 mgm3 (3836

ppmv) reported during our May 1993 visit and observed during our December 1993 visit to

31

44

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 8: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

III RADIAN CORPORATION REPORT

5

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in the report is the professional opinion of the author and does not represent the official position of the Government of the United States or the World Environment Center

RADIAN CORPORATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO Dr Bhushan Lodh Project Manager World Environment Center

FROM Edward M Andrechak Radian Corporation

DATE 27 July 1994

SUBJECT Petrochema Waste Minimization Demonstration Program For SO2

Emissions Reduction--Final Report

10 INTRODUCTION

This technical memorandum summarizes the findings of our December 1993 visit to the Petrochema Dubova Oil Refinery in the Slovak Republic This was the second visit to Petrochema as part of the World Environment Centers (WEC) Waste Minimization Demonstration Program This memorandum also documents the results of test data collected by Petrochema in March 1994

In our initial visit in May 1993 we identified two separate waste minimization projects for the reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emissions (See the previous technical memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations [Radian 8 June 1993] for more detailed background information) Both projects are associated with the production of white oil The purpose of this second visit and the subsequent testing in March 1994 was to perform test measurements to quantify the projected SO2 emissions reductions and the associated economic savings from the implementation of these two projects

This document is organized by the following sections Section 20 presents a summary of the findings of the December visit and March testing Section 30 discusses the visit and testing logistics Section 40 presents the test program and resalts for optimizing

sulfur trioxide (SO 3) in the White Oil Plant and Section 50 presents the waste minimization program involving the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge Figures and tables referenced in the memorandum are attached Also attached are photographs of some of the

analytical equipment and of the PetrochemaRadian WEC team members (Attachment A) the test data collected during the December 1993 visit (Attachment B) sample calculations for the White Oil Plant optimization (Attachment C) test data collected in March 1994 (Attachment D) and sample calculations collected for Goudron sludge neutralization and incineration (Attachment E)

20 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

During our eight-day testing and training visit to the Petrochema Refinery in December 1993 the following was accomplished or determined

1 -7

RADIAN CORPORATION

A new S02 analyzer was installed in both the White Oil Plant and at Incinerator No 2 The analyzer worked successfully and provided accurate test data primarily for the optimization of S03 production in the White Oil Plant

Plant test data were collected in the White Oil Plant for both the

optimization of the SO 2 catalytic converter and the caustic scrubber

From our test results the catalyst in the converter appeared to be

deactivated achieving less than 70 conversion At the same time the

caustic scrubber appeared to be operating well achieving greater than

90 SO2 removal efficiency

Despite the heavy inlet loading of SO2 to the caustic scrubber in the

White Oil Plant compliance with the SO 2 scrubber emissions limit can

be achieved by significantly increasing the fresh caustic feed rate to the

scrubber

Overall White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75

reduction in SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber This

decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 tons of S02 annually

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst can reduce the caustic required for

S02 scrubber emissions compliance and achieve several other economic and pollution benefits These benefits may pay for the cost of new catalyst

Planning discussions were conducted with the Petrochema staff to

conduct Goudron sludge neutralization testing after the WECRadian team returned to the United States

Radian performed classroom and field training of the Petrochema staff

on the operation of the SO 2 analyzer This training should enable Petrochemas capable staff to conduct their own plant tests in the future

From the March 1994 tests conducted by Petrochema the following was accomplished or determined

Plant test data were collected to demonstrate the effectiveness of the

neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration

Neutralized Goudron sludge mixtures when burned demonstrated SO 2

emissions which were 72 less on average than previously burned unneutralized mixtures This decrease is equivalent to a reduction of

185 metric tons of SO annually

2

30

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 emissions uponNeutralized Goudron sludge mixtures yield average

incineration which comply with the incinerators emissions permit limit

VISIT AND TESTING LOGISTICS

The WEC team consisted of four members Dr Bhushan Lodh WEC Project

Manager Mr Edward Andrechak Radian Department Head Mr Jim Howes Radian Senior

Staff Scientist and Mrs Olga Hauskrechtovd Slovak Consultant

The facility visit took place from Wednesday 1 December through Wednesday

8 December 1993 During the facility visit and the collection of test data we worked with

various members of the Petrochema staff including but not limited to Mr Josef Surdb

Technical and Production Director Ms Maria BabiakovA Head of the Department of the

Mrs Halajovd Air Emissions Engineer Department of theEnvironmental Protection Mr Michael Majercik Head of the White Oil ProductionEnvironmental Protection

Department Mr Vagner Chief Technologist White Oil Production Department and Mr

Tibor Duris Head of Energy Department Photographs of the PetrochemaRadianWEC team

and some of the analytical equipment are presented in Attachment A

1 December 1993 the analyzer was unpacked and installed in the White OilOn From 2 December through 5 December test dataPlant in preparation for data colle-tion

were collected for the optimization of SO3 production and minimization of SO2 emissions in

the White Oil Plant On 6 December the WECRadianPetrochema team reviewed the

proposed test plan for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge (this testing was

conducted by the Petrochema staff in March 1994) On 6 and 7 December Jim Howes of

Radian conducted classroom and field training for the SO 2 analyzer which was used to collect On 8 December we met with Mr Jfnthe waste minimization test data for both projects

Matag General Director to present our preliminary visit findings

Returning to Bratislava on Thursday 9 December we met with Mr Ivan Sojka

Chief of Environmental Group and Mr Andrej Soltes Engineer at the Ministry of Economy

We also met with Mr Ivan Hejda Head of Chemia and Mr Lorento reiterate our findings Schulze and Mr Martin Brunovsky of US Agency for International Development (USAID)

to discuss the current status of our project at Petrochema and possible future action

As agreed during our December visit Petrochema staff completed a series of

incineration tests in March 1994 The purpose of these subsequent tests was to determine the

effectiveness of the neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration Petrochema forwarded the March test results to Radian for analysis in May

1994

3q

RADIAN CORPORATION

40 WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NOI OPTIMIZATION OF SO 3 PRODUCTION IN THE WHITE OIL PLANT

The optimization of SO3 production and its subsequent usage during white oil production involved testing the performance of two stages in the production process The

two-step performance test measured the efficiency of 1) the vanadium pentoxide (V205 ) conversion catalyst which converts S02 to S03 and 2) the caustic scrubber which captures unconverted SO2 at the end of the process line Figure 1 shows a simplified process flow of the overall white oil production process Figure 2 shows the process flow for the production

and consumption of SO 3 in the White Oil Plant

Step one involved a performance test conducted on the V20 5 conversion catalyst This catalyst converts SO2 into SO 3 for use in sulphonating white oil feedstock Unconverted SO 2 passes through the white oil production system and is treated in a caustic scrubber at the tail end of the plant The objective of this first step was to increase the conversion of SO 3 thereby decreasing the amount of unreacted SO 2 left to pass through the system to the scrubber Excessive unreacted SO 2 could potentially overwhelm the scrubbers design capability resulting in high SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Parameters which could be varied to optimize SO3 converter efficiency were sulfur feed rate inlet bed catalyst temperature system pressure air feed rate and residence time (by additional catalyst) Only sulfur feed rate and inlet bed catalyst temperature were varied during the December 1993 test program

Step two of this optimization project involved a performance test conducted on the caustic scrubber ensuring that unreacted SO2 emissions do not pass through the scrubber to the atmosphere The main parameter which could be varied to optimize caustic scrubber performance was the rate of fresh caustic fed to the scrubber

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the optimization of SO3 in the White Oil Plant are presented in the following sections

41 Test Program Objectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Optimize the production of SO 3 from SO 2 in the V20 5 catalytic converter

Optimize the caustic scrubber operation to minimize SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Demonstrate compliance with the recently received (June 1993) scrubber 3 emissions permit limit for SO of 2500 mgn

4O

--

42

RADIAN CORPORATION

If successful in optimizing the converter and the scrubber quantify the

following

Actual reduction of scrubber SO2 emissions to the atmosphere

Net reduction in liquid sulfur feed volume

Net reduction in caustic consumption

Cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties for the period

1993-1998

Cost savings for reduction of liquid sulfur usage and

Cost savings for reduction in scrubber caustic usage

Test Methodology

Based on several discussions with Mr Majercik and Mr Vagner on

Wednesday 1 December we agreed to the following test plan to meet the test programs

The plan reflected what was technically feasible given the limitations of plantobjectives Specifically we agreed to vary theequipment and controls in the existing White Oil Plant

sulfur feed rate to the plant at rates ranging from 86 kghr to 120 kghr For each sulfur feed

rate condition the first bed inlet catalyst temperature was set to a reading that was considered optimal for that sulfur feed rate based upon the plant operators judgement Downstream

were determined by the inlet temperature ofcatalyst bed temperatures could not be varied and

the first bed

At the same time at each sulfur feed rate condition the caustic feed rate to the

was varied from 12 hr to 120 hr At each caustic rate the SO 2 concentration wasscrubber measured at the scrubber outlet to the atmosphere using the S02 analyzer provided by WEC

Figure 3 shows the location of the SO 2 measurement in relation to the scrubber From these an optimum caustic feed rate at eachoutlet SO 2 measurements we were able to determine

sulfur feed rate condition

measure aIn addition the scrubber was shut down at the end of each trial to

scrubber inlet concentration By taking both inlet and outlet SO 2 measurements for the Using these datascrubber the scrubber efficiency could be evaluated for each caustic rate

an overall assessment could also be made of the adequacy of the scrubber design to meet the

new permit emission limits for SO 2 from the scrubber given the existing converter catalyst

inlet loading to the scrubberperformance and resultant SO

Finally the scrubber inlet SO2 concentration measurement at each sulfur feed

an overall SO 2 balance around the catalytic converter Byrate could also be used to perform

5 11

43

RADIAN CORPORATION

performing this material balance the efficiency of the catalytic converter could be estimated and compared with expected design efficiency (conversion)

Following the test methodology described above live test trials were performed at sulfur feed rates of 86 90 100 106 and 120 kghr respectively First bed inlet catalyst temperatures were set at optimal conditions based upon operator judgement Generally the first bed inlet temperatures and the resultant converter temperature profile were consistent with literature values (400-430 C) for proper reaction kinetics and thermodynamic conversion

Within each trial the water rate to the scrubber was held approximately constant in the range of 15-18 1min The caustic feed rate however was varied from 12 to 120 lhr depending on the trial Scrubber outlet SO 2 concentrations were measured at each new caustic feed rate At the end of each trial a scrubber inlet SO 2 concentration was measured It should be noted that in all cases but one the inlet S02 was too high to be read on-scale by the analyzer For purposes of completing the SO 2 material balance around the catalytic converter and calciulating a converter efficiency we diluted the sample on the fifth trial (90 kghr sulfur) with air and obtained an on-scale reading

Test Results

The discussion of the test results is focused relative to our test objectives Test data sheets for each trial and graphs of the individual trials showing scrubber outlet SO 2

concentrations versus caustic feed rate are provided in Attachment B Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment C

Catalytic Converter Optimization and Efficiency

For catalytic converter efficiency we determined that the catalyst in the converter is achieving less than 70 conversion compared with a design conversion of 96 percent The sample calculation is shown as C-I in Attachment C The material balance which supports this converter efficiency calculation was performed for Trial No 5 at a sulfur feed rate of 90 kghr The off-scale measurements for inlet SO2 concentrations in Trial Nos 1-4 lend further support to the conclusion that the converter is operating well below the design efficiency

We were able to determine that the catalyst efficiency was generally low after the first four days of testing It was felt at the time of testing that small gains in converter efficiency (0-3) could be achieved by continuing the optimization tests However based upon such a low efficiency relative to design it was hypothesized that the catalyst was damaged by either poisoning aging or sintering Given the low efficiency the tests were terminated pending future resolution of the catalyst issue

6

RADIAN COItPORATION

Caustic Scrubber Optimization

While collecting the converter optimization data we were also collecting data

to optimize the caustic scrubber performance As discussed earlier we chose to vary fresh

caustic feed rate in each trial Figure 4 shows the correlation between caustic feed rate and

outlet SO2 emissions from the scrubber to the atmosphere Generally as liquid sulfur feed

rate to the plant increased the outlet SO 2 emissions from the scrubber also incresed at a

given caustic feed rate This observation is most evident on the graph at 40 Ihr caustic

Assuming a fairly constant scrubber efficiency this suggests tha no clear optimum sulfur feed

rate was found The inefficient converter passed more unreacted SO 2 with increasing sulfur

feed rate which in turn resulted in a higher outlet concentration of SO 2 from the scrubber

At each sulfur feed rate it was observed without exception that as caustic feed

rate increased outlet scrubber SO 2 emissions decreased From Figure 4 it appears that the

curve has two parts a steep decline in SO 2 emissions from 0-40 1hr caustic feed rate

Between 40 and 60 lhr depending upon the liquid sulfur feed rate the curve flattens out

From approximately 50 Ihr to 120 1hr caustic (maximum caustic feed pump rate) relative

SO emissions reductions are smaller per unit increase of caustic

The caustic scrubber efficiency ranges from an estimated 73 in Trial 5 at 40

Ihr caustic to 90-93 in Trials 1-4 Some sample calculations for scrubber efficiency are

provided as calculation C-2 in Attachment C Therefore it appears from the data set that the

scrubber can achieve good efficiency (gt90) However it is continuously being heavily

loaded with unconverted 302 from the catalytic converter

SO 2 Emissions Compliance

Achieving compliance with the new (June 1993) SO 2 scrubber emissions limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) will require that Petrochema generally increase the caustic feed

rate from typical levels of 12-20 Ihr to 60-70 lhr This represents a 250-400 increase in

the amount of caustic the plant will now use to achieve compliance for SO 2 emissions It also

should be noted that at these higher caustic feed levels Petiochema will achieve compliance

but not by much Figure 4 can be used as a SO 2 emissions compliance curve for the existing

catalyst in the SO 2 converter

Some preliminary calculations Radiaa performed (not shown) suggest that at

least two to three times the stoichiometric amount of caustic is necessary to achieve

compliance This further suggests that the inefficient SO2 converter may be overloading the

design capability of the caustic scrubber

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Despite the low converter efficiency the scrubber optimization tests

demonstrated a reduction of outlet SO emissions to the atmosphere from 10000 mgm3 (3836

ppmv) reported during our May 1993 visit and observed during our December 1993 visit to

31

44

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 9: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in the report is the professional opinion of the author and does not represent the official position of the Government of the United States or the World Environment Center

RADIAN CORPORATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO Dr Bhushan Lodh Project Manager World Environment Center

FROM Edward M Andrechak Radian Corporation

DATE 27 July 1994

SUBJECT Petrochema Waste Minimization Demonstration Program For SO2

Emissions Reduction--Final Report

10 INTRODUCTION

This technical memorandum summarizes the findings of our December 1993 visit to the Petrochema Dubova Oil Refinery in the Slovak Republic This was the second visit to Petrochema as part of the World Environment Centers (WEC) Waste Minimization Demonstration Program This memorandum also documents the results of test data collected by Petrochema in March 1994

In our initial visit in May 1993 we identified two separate waste minimization projects for the reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emissions (See the previous technical memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations [Radian 8 June 1993] for more detailed background information) Both projects are associated with the production of white oil The purpose of this second visit and the subsequent testing in March 1994 was to perform test measurements to quantify the projected SO2 emissions reductions and the associated economic savings from the implementation of these two projects

This document is organized by the following sections Section 20 presents a summary of the findings of the December visit and March testing Section 30 discusses the visit and testing logistics Section 40 presents the test program and resalts for optimizing

sulfur trioxide (SO 3) in the White Oil Plant and Section 50 presents the waste minimization program involving the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge Figures and tables referenced in the memorandum are attached Also attached are photographs of some of the

analytical equipment and of the PetrochemaRadian WEC team members (Attachment A) the test data collected during the December 1993 visit (Attachment B) sample calculations for the White Oil Plant optimization (Attachment C) test data collected in March 1994 (Attachment D) and sample calculations collected for Goudron sludge neutralization and incineration (Attachment E)

20 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

During our eight-day testing and training visit to the Petrochema Refinery in December 1993 the following was accomplished or determined

1 -7

RADIAN CORPORATION

A new S02 analyzer was installed in both the White Oil Plant and at Incinerator No 2 The analyzer worked successfully and provided accurate test data primarily for the optimization of S03 production in the White Oil Plant

Plant test data were collected in the White Oil Plant for both the

optimization of the SO 2 catalytic converter and the caustic scrubber

From our test results the catalyst in the converter appeared to be

deactivated achieving less than 70 conversion At the same time the

caustic scrubber appeared to be operating well achieving greater than

90 SO2 removal efficiency

Despite the heavy inlet loading of SO2 to the caustic scrubber in the

White Oil Plant compliance with the SO 2 scrubber emissions limit can

be achieved by significantly increasing the fresh caustic feed rate to the

scrubber

Overall White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75

reduction in SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber This

decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 tons of S02 annually

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst can reduce the caustic required for

S02 scrubber emissions compliance and achieve several other economic and pollution benefits These benefits may pay for the cost of new catalyst

Planning discussions were conducted with the Petrochema staff to

conduct Goudron sludge neutralization testing after the WECRadian team returned to the United States

Radian performed classroom and field training of the Petrochema staff

on the operation of the SO 2 analyzer This training should enable Petrochemas capable staff to conduct their own plant tests in the future

From the March 1994 tests conducted by Petrochema the following was accomplished or determined

Plant test data were collected to demonstrate the effectiveness of the

neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration

Neutralized Goudron sludge mixtures when burned demonstrated SO 2

emissions which were 72 less on average than previously burned unneutralized mixtures This decrease is equivalent to a reduction of

185 metric tons of SO annually

2

30

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 emissions uponNeutralized Goudron sludge mixtures yield average

incineration which comply with the incinerators emissions permit limit

VISIT AND TESTING LOGISTICS

The WEC team consisted of four members Dr Bhushan Lodh WEC Project

Manager Mr Edward Andrechak Radian Department Head Mr Jim Howes Radian Senior

Staff Scientist and Mrs Olga Hauskrechtovd Slovak Consultant

The facility visit took place from Wednesday 1 December through Wednesday

8 December 1993 During the facility visit and the collection of test data we worked with

various members of the Petrochema staff including but not limited to Mr Josef Surdb

Technical and Production Director Ms Maria BabiakovA Head of the Department of the

Mrs Halajovd Air Emissions Engineer Department of theEnvironmental Protection Mr Michael Majercik Head of the White Oil ProductionEnvironmental Protection

Department Mr Vagner Chief Technologist White Oil Production Department and Mr

Tibor Duris Head of Energy Department Photographs of the PetrochemaRadianWEC team

and some of the analytical equipment are presented in Attachment A

1 December 1993 the analyzer was unpacked and installed in the White OilOn From 2 December through 5 December test dataPlant in preparation for data colle-tion

were collected for the optimization of SO3 production and minimization of SO2 emissions in

the White Oil Plant On 6 December the WECRadianPetrochema team reviewed the

proposed test plan for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge (this testing was

conducted by the Petrochema staff in March 1994) On 6 and 7 December Jim Howes of

Radian conducted classroom and field training for the SO 2 analyzer which was used to collect On 8 December we met with Mr Jfnthe waste minimization test data for both projects

Matag General Director to present our preliminary visit findings

Returning to Bratislava on Thursday 9 December we met with Mr Ivan Sojka

Chief of Environmental Group and Mr Andrej Soltes Engineer at the Ministry of Economy

We also met with Mr Ivan Hejda Head of Chemia and Mr Lorento reiterate our findings Schulze and Mr Martin Brunovsky of US Agency for International Development (USAID)

to discuss the current status of our project at Petrochema and possible future action

As agreed during our December visit Petrochema staff completed a series of

incineration tests in March 1994 The purpose of these subsequent tests was to determine the

effectiveness of the neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration Petrochema forwarded the March test results to Radian for analysis in May

1994

3q

RADIAN CORPORATION

40 WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NOI OPTIMIZATION OF SO 3 PRODUCTION IN THE WHITE OIL PLANT

The optimization of SO3 production and its subsequent usage during white oil production involved testing the performance of two stages in the production process The

two-step performance test measured the efficiency of 1) the vanadium pentoxide (V205 ) conversion catalyst which converts S02 to S03 and 2) the caustic scrubber which captures unconverted SO2 at the end of the process line Figure 1 shows a simplified process flow of the overall white oil production process Figure 2 shows the process flow for the production

and consumption of SO 3 in the White Oil Plant

Step one involved a performance test conducted on the V20 5 conversion catalyst This catalyst converts SO2 into SO 3 for use in sulphonating white oil feedstock Unconverted SO 2 passes through the white oil production system and is treated in a caustic scrubber at the tail end of the plant The objective of this first step was to increase the conversion of SO 3 thereby decreasing the amount of unreacted SO 2 left to pass through the system to the scrubber Excessive unreacted SO 2 could potentially overwhelm the scrubbers design capability resulting in high SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Parameters which could be varied to optimize SO3 converter efficiency were sulfur feed rate inlet bed catalyst temperature system pressure air feed rate and residence time (by additional catalyst) Only sulfur feed rate and inlet bed catalyst temperature were varied during the December 1993 test program

Step two of this optimization project involved a performance test conducted on the caustic scrubber ensuring that unreacted SO2 emissions do not pass through the scrubber to the atmosphere The main parameter which could be varied to optimize caustic scrubber performance was the rate of fresh caustic fed to the scrubber

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the optimization of SO3 in the White Oil Plant are presented in the following sections

41 Test Program Objectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Optimize the production of SO 3 from SO 2 in the V20 5 catalytic converter

Optimize the caustic scrubber operation to minimize SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Demonstrate compliance with the recently received (June 1993) scrubber 3 emissions permit limit for SO of 2500 mgn

4O

--

42

RADIAN CORPORATION

If successful in optimizing the converter and the scrubber quantify the

following

Actual reduction of scrubber SO2 emissions to the atmosphere

Net reduction in liquid sulfur feed volume

Net reduction in caustic consumption

Cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties for the period

1993-1998

Cost savings for reduction of liquid sulfur usage and

Cost savings for reduction in scrubber caustic usage

Test Methodology

Based on several discussions with Mr Majercik and Mr Vagner on

Wednesday 1 December we agreed to the following test plan to meet the test programs

The plan reflected what was technically feasible given the limitations of plantobjectives Specifically we agreed to vary theequipment and controls in the existing White Oil Plant

sulfur feed rate to the plant at rates ranging from 86 kghr to 120 kghr For each sulfur feed

rate condition the first bed inlet catalyst temperature was set to a reading that was considered optimal for that sulfur feed rate based upon the plant operators judgement Downstream

were determined by the inlet temperature ofcatalyst bed temperatures could not be varied and

the first bed

At the same time at each sulfur feed rate condition the caustic feed rate to the

was varied from 12 hr to 120 hr At each caustic rate the SO 2 concentration wasscrubber measured at the scrubber outlet to the atmosphere using the S02 analyzer provided by WEC

Figure 3 shows the location of the SO 2 measurement in relation to the scrubber From these an optimum caustic feed rate at eachoutlet SO 2 measurements we were able to determine

sulfur feed rate condition

measure aIn addition the scrubber was shut down at the end of each trial to

scrubber inlet concentration By taking both inlet and outlet SO 2 measurements for the Using these datascrubber the scrubber efficiency could be evaluated for each caustic rate

an overall assessment could also be made of the adequacy of the scrubber design to meet the

new permit emission limits for SO 2 from the scrubber given the existing converter catalyst

inlet loading to the scrubberperformance and resultant SO

Finally the scrubber inlet SO2 concentration measurement at each sulfur feed

an overall SO 2 balance around the catalytic converter Byrate could also be used to perform

5 11

43

RADIAN CORPORATION

performing this material balance the efficiency of the catalytic converter could be estimated and compared with expected design efficiency (conversion)

Following the test methodology described above live test trials were performed at sulfur feed rates of 86 90 100 106 and 120 kghr respectively First bed inlet catalyst temperatures were set at optimal conditions based upon operator judgement Generally the first bed inlet temperatures and the resultant converter temperature profile were consistent with literature values (400-430 C) for proper reaction kinetics and thermodynamic conversion

Within each trial the water rate to the scrubber was held approximately constant in the range of 15-18 1min The caustic feed rate however was varied from 12 to 120 lhr depending on the trial Scrubber outlet SO 2 concentrations were measured at each new caustic feed rate At the end of each trial a scrubber inlet SO 2 concentration was measured It should be noted that in all cases but one the inlet S02 was too high to be read on-scale by the analyzer For purposes of completing the SO 2 material balance around the catalytic converter and calciulating a converter efficiency we diluted the sample on the fifth trial (90 kghr sulfur) with air and obtained an on-scale reading

Test Results

The discussion of the test results is focused relative to our test objectives Test data sheets for each trial and graphs of the individual trials showing scrubber outlet SO 2

concentrations versus caustic feed rate are provided in Attachment B Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment C

Catalytic Converter Optimization and Efficiency

For catalytic converter efficiency we determined that the catalyst in the converter is achieving less than 70 conversion compared with a design conversion of 96 percent The sample calculation is shown as C-I in Attachment C The material balance which supports this converter efficiency calculation was performed for Trial No 5 at a sulfur feed rate of 90 kghr The off-scale measurements for inlet SO2 concentrations in Trial Nos 1-4 lend further support to the conclusion that the converter is operating well below the design efficiency

We were able to determine that the catalyst efficiency was generally low after the first four days of testing It was felt at the time of testing that small gains in converter efficiency (0-3) could be achieved by continuing the optimization tests However based upon such a low efficiency relative to design it was hypothesized that the catalyst was damaged by either poisoning aging or sintering Given the low efficiency the tests were terminated pending future resolution of the catalyst issue

6

RADIAN COItPORATION

Caustic Scrubber Optimization

While collecting the converter optimization data we were also collecting data

to optimize the caustic scrubber performance As discussed earlier we chose to vary fresh

caustic feed rate in each trial Figure 4 shows the correlation between caustic feed rate and

outlet SO2 emissions from the scrubber to the atmosphere Generally as liquid sulfur feed

rate to the plant increased the outlet SO 2 emissions from the scrubber also incresed at a

given caustic feed rate This observation is most evident on the graph at 40 Ihr caustic

Assuming a fairly constant scrubber efficiency this suggests tha no clear optimum sulfur feed

rate was found The inefficient converter passed more unreacted SO 2 with increasing sulfur

feed rate which in turn resulted in a higher outlet concentration of SO 2 from the scrubber

At each sulfur feed rate it was observed without exception that as caustic feed

rate increased outlet scrubber SO 2 emissions decreased From Figure 4 it appears that the

curve has two parts a steep decline in SO 2 emissions from 0-40 1hr caustic feed rate

Between 40 and 60 lhr depending upon the liquid sulfur feed rate the curve flattens out

From approximately 50 Ihr to 120 1hr caustic (maximum caustic feed pump rate) relative

SO emissions reductions are smaller per unit increase of caustic

The caustic scrubber efficiency ranges from an estimated 73 in Trial 5 at 40

Ihr caustic to 90-93 in Trials 1-4 Some sample calculations for scrubber efficiency are

provided as calculation C-2 in Attachment C Therefore it appears from the data set that the

scrubber can achieve good efficiency (gt90) However it is continuously being heavily

loaded with unconverted 302 from the catalytic converter

SO 2 Emissions Compliance

Achieving compliance with the new (June 1993) SO 2 scrubber emissions limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) will require that Petrochema generally increase the caustic feed

rate from typical levels of 12-20 Ihr to 60-70 lhr This represents a 250-400 increase in

the amount of caustic the plant will now use to achieve compliance for SO 2 emissions It also

should be noted that at these higher caustic feed levels Petiochema will achieve compliance

but not by much Figure 4 can be used as a SO 2 emissions compliance curve for the existing

catalyst in the SO 2 converter

Some preliminary calculations Radiaa performed (not shown) suggest that at

least two to three times the stoichiometric amount of caustic is necessary to achieve

compliance This further suggests that the inefficient SO2 converter may be overloading the

design capability of the caustic scrubber

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Despite the low converter efficiency the scrubber optimization tests

demonstrated a reduction of outlet SO emissions to the atmosphere from 10000 mgm3 (3836

ppmv) reported during our May 1993 visit and observed during our December 1993 visit to

31

44

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 10: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

RADIAN CORPORATION

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO Dr Bhushan Lodh Project Manager World Environment Center

FROM Edward M Andrechak Radian Corporation

DATE 27 July 1994

SUBJECT Petrochema Waste Minimization Demonstration Program For SO2

Emissions Reduction--Final Report

10 INTRODUCTION

This technical memorandum summarizes the findings of our December 1993 visit to the Petrochema Dubova Oil Refinery in the Slovak Republic This was the second visit to Petrochema as part of the World Environment Centers (WEC) Waste Minimization Demonstration Program This memorandum also documents the results of test data collected by Petrochema in March 1994

In our initial visit in May 1993 we identified two separate waste minimization projects for the reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO 2) emissions (See the previous technical memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations [Radian 8 June 1993] for more detailed background information) Both projects are associated with the production of white oil The purpose of this second visit and the subsequent testing in March 1994 was to perform test measurements to quantify the projected SO2 emissions reductions and the associated economic savings from the implementation of these two projects

This document is organized by the following sections Section 20 presents a summary of the findings of the December visit and March testing Section 30 discusses the visit and testing logistics Section 40 presents the test program and resalts for optimizing

sulfur trioxide (SO 3) in the White Oil Plant and Section 50 presents the waste minimization program involving the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge Figures and tables referenced in the memorandum are attached Also attached are photographs of some of the

analytical equipment and of the PetrochemaRadian WEC team members (Attachment A) the test data collected during the December 1993 visit (Attachment B) sample calculations for the White Oil Plant optimization (Attachment C) test data collected in March 1994 (Attachment D) and sample calculations collected for Goudron sludge neutralization and incineration (Attachment E)

20 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

During our eight-day testing and training visit to the Petrochema Refinery in December 1993 the following was accomplished or determined

1 -7

RADIAN CORPORATION

A new S02 analyzer was installed in both the White Oil Plant and at Incinerator No 2 The analyzer worked successfully and provided accurate test data primarily for the optimization of S03 production in the White Oil Plant

Plant test data were collected in the White Oil Plant for both the

optimization of the SO 2 catalytic converter and the caustic scrubber

From our test results the catalyst in the converter appeared to be

deactivated achieving less than 70 conversion At the same time the

caustic scrubber appeared to be operating well achieving greater than

90 SO2 removal efficiency

Despite the heavy inlet loading of SO2 to the caustic scrubber in the

White Oil Plant compliance with the SO 2 scrubber emissions limit can

be achieved by significantly increasing the fresh caustic feed rate to the

scrubber

Overall White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75

reduction in SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber This

decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 tons of S02 annually

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst can reduce the caustic required for

S02 scrubber emissions compliance and achieve several other economic and pollution benefits These benefits may pay for the cost of new catalyst

Planning discussions were conducted with the Petrochema staff to

conduct Goudron sludge neutralization testing after the WECRadian team returned to the United States

Radian performed classroom and field training of the Petrochema staff

on the operation of the SO 2 analyzer This training should enable Petrochemas capable staff to conduct their own plant tests in the future

From the March 1994 tests conducted by Petrochema the following was accomplished or determined

Plant test data were collected to demonstrate the effectiveness of the

neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration

Neutralized Goudron sludge mixtures when burned demonstrated SO 2

emissions which were 72 less on average than previously burned unneutralized mixtures This decrease is equivalent to a reduction of

185 metric tons of SO annually

2

30

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 emissions uponNeutralized Goudron sludge mixtures yield average

incineration which comply with the incinerators emissions permit limit

VISIT AND TESTING LOGISTICS

The WEC team consisted of four members Dr Bhushan Lodh WEC Project

Manager Mr Edward Andrechak Radian Department Head Mr Jim Howes Radian Senior

Staff Scientist and Mrs Olga Hauskrechtovd Slovak Consultant

The facility visit took place from Wednesday 1 December through Wednesday

8 December 1993 During the facility visit and the collection of test data we worked with

various members of the Petrochema staff including but not limited to Mr Josef Surdb

Technical and Production Director Ms Maria BabiakovA Head of the Department of the

Mrs Halajovd Air Emissions Engineer Department of theEnvironmental Protection Mr Michael Majercik Head of the White Oil ProductionEnvironmental Protection

Department Mr Vagner Chief Technologist White Oil Production Department and Mr

Tibor Duris Head of Energy Department Photographs of the PetrochemaRadianWEC team

and some of the analytical equipment are presented in Attachment A

1 December 1993 the analyzer was unpacked and installed in the White OilOn From 2 December through 5 December test dataPlant in preparation for data colle-tion

were collected for the optimization of SO3 production and minimization of SO2 emissions in

the White Oil Plant On 6 December the WECRadianPetrochema team reviewed the

proposed test plan for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge (this testing was

conducted by the Petrochema staff in March 1994) On 6 and 7 December Jim Howes of

Radian conducted classroom and field training for the SO 2 analyzer which was used to collect On 8 December we met with Mr Jfnthe waste minimization test data for both projects

Matag General Director to present our preliminary visit findings

Returning to Bratislava on Thursday 9 December we met with Mr Ivan Sojka

Chief of Environmental Group and Mr Andrej Soltes Engineer at the Ministry of Economy

We also met with Mr Ivan Hejda Head of Chemia and Mr Lorento reiterate our findings Schulze and Mr Martin Brunovsky of US Agency for International Development (USAID)

to discuss the current status of our project at Petrochema and possible future action

As agreed during our December visit Petrochema staff completed a series of

incineration tests in March 1994 The purpose of these subsequent tests was to determine the

effectiveness of the neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration Petrochema forwarded the March test results to Radian for analysis in May

1994

3q

RADIAN CORPORATION

40 WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NOI OPTIMIZATION OF SO 3 PRODUCTION IN THE WHITE OIL PLANT

The optimization of SO3 production and its subsequent usage during white oil production involved testing the performance of two stages in the production process The

two-step performance test measured the efficiency of 1) the vanadium pentoxide (V205 ) conversion catalyst which converts S02 to S03 and 2) the caustic scrubber which captures unconverted SO2 at the end of the process line Figure 1 shows a simplified process flow of the overall white oil production process Figure 2 shows the process flow for the production

and consumption of SO 3 in the White Oil Plant

Step one involved a performance test conducted on the V20 5 conversion catalyst This catalyst converts SO2 into SO 3 for use in sulphonating white oil feedstock Unconverted SO 2 passes through the white oil production system and is treated in a caustic scrubber at the tail end of the plant The objective of this first step was to increase the conversion of SO 3 thereby decreasing the amount of unreacted SO 2 left to pass through the system to the scrubber Excessive unreacted SO 2 could potentially overwhelm the scrubbers design capability resulting in high SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Parameters which could be varied to optimize SO3 converter efficiency were sulfur feed rate inlet bed catalyst temperature system pressure air feed rate and residence time (by additional catalyst) Only sulfur feed rate and inlet bed catalyst temperature were varied during the December 1993 test program

Step two of this optimization project involved a performance test conducted on the caustic scrubber ensuring that unreacted SO2 emissions do not pass through the scrubber to the atmosphere The main parameter which could be varied to optimize caustic scrubber performance was the rate of fresh caustic fed to the scrubber

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the optimization of SO3 in the White Oil Plant are presented in the following sections

41 Test Program Objectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Optimize the production of SO 3 from SO 2 in the V20 5 catalytic converter

Optimize the caustic scrubber operation to minimize SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Demonstrate compliance with the recently received (June 1993) scrubber 3 emissions permit limit for SO of 2500 mgn

4O

--

42

RADIAN CORPORATION

If successful in optimizing the converter and the scrubber quantify the

following

Actual reduction of scrubber SO2 emissions to the atmosphere

Net reduction in liquid sulfur feed volume

Net reduction in caustic consumption

Cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties for the period

1993-1998

Cost savings for reduction of liquid sulfur usage and

Cost savings for reduction in scrubber caustic usage

Test Methodology

Based on several discussions with Mr Majercik and Mr Vagner on

Wednesday 1 December we agreed to the following test plan to meet the test programs

The plan reflected what was technically feasible given the limitations of plantobjectives Specifically we agreed to vary theequipment and controls in the existing White Oil Plant

sulfur feed rate to the plant at rates ranging from 86 kghr to 120 kghr For each sulfur feed

rate condition the first bed inlet catalyst temperature was set to a reading that was considered optimal for that sulfur feed rate based upon the plant operators judgement Downstream

were determined by the inlet temperature ofcatalyst bed temperatures could not be varied and

the first bed

At the same time at each sulfur feed rate condition the caustic feed rate to the

was varied from 12 hr to 120 hr At each caustic rate the SO 2 concentration wasscrubber measured at the scrubber outlet to the atmosphere using the S02 analyzer provided by WEC

Figure 3 shows the location of the SO 2 measurement in relation to the scrubber From these an optimum caustic feed rate at eachoutlet SO 2 measurements we were able to determine

sulfur feed rate condition

measure aIn addition the scrubber was shut down at the end of each trial to

scrubber inlet concentration By taking both inlet and outlet SO 2 measurements for the Using these datascrubber the scrubber efficiency could be evaluated for each caustic rate

an overall assessment could also be made of the adequacy of the scrubber design to meet the

new permit emission limits for SO 2 from the scrubber given the existing converter catalyst

inlet loading to the scrubberperformance and resultant SO

Finally the scrubber inlet SO2 concentration measurement at each sulfur feed

an overall SO 2 balance around the catalytic converter Byrate could also be used to perform

5 11

43

RADIAN CORPORATION

performing this material balance the efficiency of the catalytic converter could be estimated and compared with expected design efficiency (conversion)

Following the test methodology described above live test trials were performed at sulfur feed rates of 86 90 100 106 and 120 kghr respectively First bed inlet catalyst temperatures were set at optimal conditions based upon operator judgement Generally the first bed inlet temperatures and the resultant converter temperature profile were consistent with literature values (400-430 C) for proper reaction kinetics and thermodynamic conversion

Within each trial the water rate to the scrubber was held approximately constant in the range of 15-18 1min The caustic feed rate however was varied from 12 to 120 lhr depending on the trial Scrubber outlet SO 2 concentrations were measured at each new caustic feed rate At the end of each trial a scrubber inlet SO 2 concentration was measured It should be noted that in all cases but one the inlet S02 was too high to be read on-scale by the analyzer For purposes of completing the SO 2 material balance around the catalytic converter and calciulating a converter efficiency we diluted the sample on the fifth trial (90 kghr sulfur) with air and obtained an on-scale reading

Test Results

The discussion of the test results is focused relative to our test objectives Test data sheets for each trial and graphs of the individual trials showing scrubber outlet SO 2

concentrations versus caustic feed rate are provided in Attachment B Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment C

Catalytic Converter Optimization and Efficiency

For catalytic converter efficiency we determined that the catalyst in the converter is achieving less than 70 conversion compared with a design conversion of 96 percent The sample calculation is shown as C-I in Attachment C The material balance which supports this converter efficiency calculation was performed for Trial No 5 at a sulfur feed rate of 90 kghr The off-scale measurements for inlet SO2 concentrations in Trial Nos 1-4 lend further support to the conclusion that the converter is operating well below the design efficiency

We were able to determine that the catalyst efficiency was generally low after the first four days of testing It was felt at the time of testing that small gains in converter efficiency (0-3) could be achieved by continuing the optimization tests However based upon such a low efficiency relative to design it was hypothesized that the catalyst was damaged by either poisoning aging or sintering Given the low efficiency the tests were terminated pending future resolution of the catalyst issue

6

RADIAN COItPORATION

Caustic Scrubber Optimization

While collecting the converter optimization data we were also collecting data

to optimize the caustic scrubber performance As discussed earlier we chose to vary fresh

caustic feed rate in each trial Figure 4 shows the correlation between caustic feed rate and

outlet SO2 emissions from the scrubber to the atmosphere Generally as liquid sulfur feed

rate to the plant increased the outlet SO 2 emissions from the scrubber also incresed at a

given caustic feed rate This observation is most evident on the graph at 40 Ihr caustic

Assuming a fairly constant scrubber efficiency this suggests tha no clear optimum sulfur feed

rate was found The inefficient converter passed more unreacted SO 2 with increasing sulfur

feed rate which in turn resulted in a higher outlet concentration of SO 2 from the scrubber

At each sulfur feed rate it was observed without exception that as caustic feed

rate increased outlet scrubber SO 2 emissions decreased From Figure 4 it appears that the

curve has two parts a steep decline in SO 2 emissions from 0-40 1hr caustic feed rate

Between 40 and 60 lhr depending upon the liquid sulfur feed rate the curve flattens out

From approximately 50 Ihr to 120 1hr caustic (maximum caustic feed pump rate) relative

SO emissions reductions are smaller per unit increase of caustic

The caustic scrubber efficiency ranges from an estimated 73 in Trial 5 at 40

Ihr caustic to 90-93 in Trials 1-4 Some sample calculations for scrubber efficiency are

provided as calculation C-2 in Attachment C Therefore it appears from the data set that the

scrubber can achieve good efficiency (gt90) However it is continuously being heavily

loaded with unconverted 302 from the catalytic converter

SO 2 Emissions Compliance

Achieving compliance with the new (June 1993) SO 2 scrubber emissions limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) will require that Petrochema generally increase the caustic feed

rate from typical levels of 12-20 Ihr to 60-70 lhr This represents a 250-400 increase in

the amount of caustic the plant will now use to achieve compliance for SO 2 emissions It also

should be noted that at these higher caustic feed levels Petiochema will achieve compliance

but not by much Figure 4 can be used as a SO 2 emissions compliance curve for the existing

catalyst in the SO 2 converter

Some preliminary calculations Radiaa performed (not shown) suggest that at

least two to three times the stoichiometric amount of caustic is necessary to achieve

compliance This further suggests that the inefficient SO2 converter may be overloading the

design capability of the caustic scrubber

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Despite the low converter efficiency the scrubber optimization tests

demonstrated a reduction of outlet SO emissions to the atmosphere from 10000 mgm3 (3836

ppmv) reported during our May 1993 visit and observed during our December 1993 visit to

31

44

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 11: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

RADIAN CORPORATION

A new S02 analyzer was installed in both the White Oil Plant and at Incinerator No 2 The analyzer worked successfully and provided accurate test data primarily for the optimization of S03 production in the White Oil Plant

Plant test data were collected in the White Oil Plant for both the

optimization of the SO 2 catalytic converter and the caustic scrubber

From our test results the catalyst in the converter appeared to be

deactivated achieving less than 70 conversion At the same time the

caustic scrubber appeared to be operating well achieving greater than

90 SO2 removal efficiency

Despite the heavy inlet loading of SO2 to the caustic scrubber in the

White Oil Plant compliance with the SO 2 scrubber emissions limit can

be achieved by significantly increasing the fresh caustic feed rate to the

scrubber

Overall White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75

reduction in SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber This

decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 tons of S02 annually

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst can reduce the caustic required for

S02 scrubber emissions compliance and achieve several other economic and pollution benefits These benefits may pay for the cost of new catalyst

Planning discussions were conducted with the Petrochema staff to

conduct Goudron sludge neutralization testing after the WECRadian team returned to the United States

Radian performed classroom and field training of the Petrochema staff

on the operation of the SO 2 analyzer This training should enable Petrochemas capable staff to conduct their own plant tests in the future

From the March 1994 tests conducted by Petrochema the following was accomplished or determined

Plant test data were collected to demonstrate the effectiveness of the

neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration

Neutralized Goudron sludge mixtures when burned demonstrated SO 2

emissions which were 72 less on average than previously burned unneutralized mixtures This decrease is equivalent to a reduction of

185 metric tons of SO annually

2

30

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 emissions uponNeutralized Goudron sludge mixtures yield average

incineration which comply with the incinerators emissions permit limit

VISIT AND TESTING LOGISTICS

The WEC team consisted of four members Dr Bhushan Lodh WEC Project

Manager Mr Edward Andrechak Radian Department Head Mr Jim Howes Radian Senior

Staff Scientist and Mrs Olga Hauskrechtovd Slovak Consultant

The facility visit took place from Wednesday 1 December through Wednesday

8 December 1993 During the facility visit and the collection of test data we worked with

various members of the Petrochema staff including but not limited to Mr Josef Surdb

Technical and Production Director Ms Maria BabiakovA Head of the Department of the

Mrs Halajovd Air Emissions Engineer Department of theEnvironmental Protection Mr Michael Majercik Head of the White Oil ProductionEnvironmental Protection

Department Mr Vagner Chief Technologist White Oil Production Department and Mr

Tibor Duris Head of Energy Department Photographs of the PetrochemaRadianWEC team

and some of the analytical equipment are presented in Attachment A

1 December 1993 the analyzer was unpacked and installed in the White OilOn From 2 December through 5 December test dataPlant in preparation for data colle-tion

were collected for the optimization of SO3 production and minimization of SO2 emissions in

the White Oil Plant On 6 December the WECRadianPetrochema team reviewed the

proposed test plan for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge (this testing was

conducted by the Petrochema staff in March 1994) On 6 and 7 December Jim Howes of

Radian conducted classroom and field training for the SO 2 analyzer which was used to collect On 8 December we met with Mr Jfnthe waste minimization test data for both projects

Matag General Director to present our preliminary visit findings

Returning to Bratislava on Thursday 9 December we met with Mr Ivan Sojka

Chief of Environmental Group and Mr Andrej Soltes Engineer at the Ministry of Economy

We also met with Mr Ivan Hejda Head of Chemia and Mr Lorento reiterate our findings Schulze and Mr Martin Brunovsky of US Agency for International Development (USAID)

to discuss the current status of our project at Petrochema and possible future action

As agreed during our December visit Petrochema staff completed a series of

incineration tests in March 1994 The purpose of these subsequent tests was to determine the

effectiveness of the neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration Petrochema forwarded the March test results to Radian for analysis in May

1994

3q

RADIAN CORPORATION

40 WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NOI OPTIMIZATION OF SO 3 PRODUCTION IN THE WHITE OIL PLANT

The optimization of SO3 production and its subsequent usage during white oil production involved testing the performance of two stages in the production process The

two-step performance test measured the efficiency of 1) the vanadium pentoxide (V205 ) conversion catalyst which converts S02 to S03 and 2) the caustic scrubber which captures unconverted SO2 at the end of the process line Figure 1 shows a simplified process flow of the overall white oil production process Figure 2 shows the process flow for the production

and consumption of SO 3 in the White Oil Plant

Step one involved a performance test conducted on the V20 5 conversion catalyst This catalyst converts SO2 into SO 3 for use in sulphonating white oil feedstock Unconverted SO 2 passes through the white oil production system and is treated in a caustic scrubber at the tail end of the plant The objective of this first step was to increase the conversion of SO 3 thereby decreasing the amount of unreacted SO 2 left to pass through the system to the scrubber Excessive unreacted SO 2 could potentially overwhelm the scrubbers design capability resulting in high SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Parameters which could be varied to optimize SO3 converter efficiency were sulfur feed rate inlet bed catalyst temperature system pressure air feed rate and residence time (by additional catalyst) Only sulfur feed rate and inlet bed catalyst temperature were varied during the December 1993 test program

Step two of this optimization project involved a performance test conducted on the caustic scrubber ensuring that unreacted SO2 emissions do not pass through the scrubber to the atmosphere The main parameter which could be varied to optimize caustic scrubber performance was the rate of fresh caustic fed to the scrubber

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the optimization of SO3 in the White Oil Plant are presented in the following sections

41 Test Program Objectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Optimize the production of SO 3 from SO 2 in the V20 5 catalytic converter

Optimize the caustic scrubber operation to minimize SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Demonstrate compliance with the recently received (June 1993) scrubber 3 emissions permit limit for SO of 2500 mgn

4O

--

42

RADIAN CORPORATION

If successful in optimizing the converter and the scrubber quantify the

following

Actual reduction of scrubber SO2 emissions to the atmosphere

Net reduction in liquid sulfur feed volume

Net reduction in caustic consumption

Cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties for the period

1993-1998

Cost savings for reduction of liquid sulfur usage and

Cost savings for reduction in scrubber caustic usage

Test Methodology

Based on several discussions with Mr Majercik and Mr Vagner on

Wednesday 1 December we agreed to the following test plan to meet the test programs

The plan reflected what was technically feasible given the limitations of plantobjectives Specifically we agreed to vary theequipment and controls in the existing White Oil Plant

sulfur feed rate to the plant at rates ranging from 86 kghr to 120 kghr For each sulfur feed

rate condition the first bed inlet catalyst temperature was set to a reading that was considered optimal for that sulfur feed rate based upon the plant operators judgement Downstream

were determined by the inlet temperature ofcatalyst bed temperatures could not be varied and

the first bed

At the same time at each sulfur feed rate condition the caustic feed rate to the

was varied from 12 hr to 120 hr At each caustic rate the SO 2 concentration wasscrubber measured at the scrubber outlet to the atmosphere using the S02 analyzer provided by WEC

Figure 3 shows the location of the SO 2 measurement in relation to the scrubber From these an optimum caustic feed rate at eachoutlet SO 2 measurements we were able to determine

sulfur feed rate condition

measure aIn addition the scrubber was shut down at the end of each trial to

scrubber inlet concentration By taking both inlet and outlet SO 2 measurements for the Using these datascrubber the scrubber efficiency could be evaluated for each caustic rate

an overall assessment could also be made of the adequacy of the scrubber design to meet the

new permit emission limits for SO 2 from the scrubber given the existing converter catalyst

inlet loading to the scrubberperformance and resultant SO

Finally the scrubber inlet SO2 concentration measurement at each sulfur feed

an overall SO 2 balance around the catalytic converter Byrate could also be used to perform

5 11

43

RADIAN CORPORATION

performing this material balance the efficiency of the catalytic converter could be estimated and compared with expected design efficiency (conversion)

Following the test methodology described above live test trials were performed at sulfur feed rates of 86 90 100 106 and 120 kghr respectively First bed inlet catalyst temperatures were set at optimal conditions based upon operator judgement Generally the first bed inlet temperatures and the resultant converter temperature profile were consistent with literature values (400-430 C) for proper reaction kinetics and thermodynamic conversion

Within each trial the water rate to the scrubber was held approximately constant in the range of 15-18 1min The caustic feed rate however was varied from 12 to 120 lhr depending on the trial Scrubber outlet SO 2 concentrations were measured at each new caustic feed rate At the end of each trial a scrubber inlet SO 2 concentration was measured It should be noted that in all cases but one the inlet S02 was too high to be read on-scale by the analyzer For purposes of completing the SO 2 material balance around the catalytic converter and calciulating a converter efficiency we diluted the sample on the fifth trial (90 kghr sulfur) with air and obtained an on-scale reading

Test Results

The discussion of the test results is focused relative to our test objectives Test data sheets for each trial and graphs of the individual trials showing scrubber outlet SO 2

concentrations versus caustic feed rate are provided in Attachment B Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment C

Catalytic Converter Optimization and Efficiency

For catalytic converter efficiency we determined that the catalyst in the converter is achieving less than 70 conversion compared with a design conversion of 96 percent The sample calculation is shown as C-I in Attachment C The material balance which supports this converter efficiency calculation was performed for Trial No 5 at a sulfur feed rate of 90 kghr The off-scale measurements for inlet SO2 concentrations in Trial Nos 1-4 lend further support to the conclusion that the converter is operating well below the design efficiency

We were able to determine that the catalyst efficiency was generally low after the first four days of testing It was felt at the time of testing that small gains in converter efficiency (0-3) could be achieved by continuing the optimization tests However based upon such a low efficiency relative to design it was hypothesized that the catalyst was damaged by either poisoning aging or sintering Given the low efficiency the tests were terminated pending future resolution of the catalyst issue

6

RADIAN COItPORATION

Caustic Scrubber Optimization

While collecting the converter optimization data we were also collecting data

to optimize the caustic scrubber performance As discussed earlier we chose to vary fresh

caustic feed rate in each trial Figure 4 shows the correlation between caustic feed rate and

outlet SO2 emissions from the scrubber to the atmosphere Generally as liquid sulfur feed

rate to the plant increased the outlet SO 2 emissions from the scrubber also incresed at a

given caustic feed rate This observation is most evident on the graph at 40 Ihr caustic

Assuming a fairly constant scrubber efficiency this suggests tha no clear optimum sulfur feed

rate was found The inefficient converter passed more unreacted SO 2 with increasing sulfur

feed rate which in turn resulted in a higher outlet concentration of SO 2 from the scrubber

At each sulfur feed rate it was observed without exception that as caustic feed

rate increased outlet scrubber SO 2 emissions decreased From Figure 4 it appears that the

curve has two parts a steep decline in SO 2 emissions from 0-40 1hr caustic feed rate

Between 40 and 60 lhr depending upon the liquid sulfur feed rate the curve flattens out

From approximately 50 Ihr to 120 1hr caustic (maximum caustic feed pump rate) relative

SO emissions reductions are smaller per unit increase of caustic

The caustic scrubber efficiency ranges from an estimated 73 in Trial 5 at 40

Ihr caustic to 90-93 in Trials 1-4 Some sample calculations for scrubber efficiency are

provided as calculation C-2 in Attachment C Therefore it appears from the data set that the

scrubber can achieve good efficiency (gt90) However it is continuously being heavily

loaded with unconverted 302 from the catalytic converter

SO 2 Emissions Compliance

Achieving compliance with the new (June 1993) SO 2 scrubber emissions limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) will require that Petrochema generally increase the caustic feed

rate from typical levels of 12-20 Ihr to 60-70 lhr This represents a 250-400 increase in

the amount of caustic the plant will now use to achieve compliance for SO 2 emissions It also

should be noted that at these higher caustic feed levels Petiochema will achieve compliance

but not by much Figure 4 can be used as a SO 2 emissions compliance curve for the existing

catalyst in the SO 2 converter

Some preliminary calculations Radiaa performed (not shown) suggest that at

least two to three times the stoichiometric amount of caustic is necessary to achieve

compliance This further suggests that the inefficient SO2 converter may be overloading the

design capability of the caustic scrubber

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Despite the low converter efficiency the scrubber optimization tests

demonstrated a reduction of outlet SO emissions to the atmosphere from 10000 mgm3 (3836

ppmv) reported during our May 1993 visit and observed during our December 1993 visit to

31

44

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 12: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

30

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 emissions uponNeutralized Goudron sludge mixtures yield average

incineration which comply with the incinerators emissions permit limit

VISIT AND TESTING LOGISTICS

The WEC team consisted of four members Dr Bhushan Lodh WEC Project

Manager Mr Edward Andrechak Radian Department Head Mr Jim Howes Radian Senior

Staff Scientist and Mrs Olga Hauskrechtovd Slovak Consultant

The facility visit took place from Wednesday 1 December through Wednesday

8 December 1993 During the facility visit and the collection of test data we worked with

various members of the Petrochema staff including but not limited to Mr Josef Surdb

Technical and Production Director Ms Maria BabiakovA Head of the Department of the

Mrs Halajovd Air Emissions Engineer Department of theEnvironmental Protection Mr Michael Majercik Head of the White Oil ProductionEnvironmental Protection

Department Mr Vagner Chief Technologist White Oil Production Department and Mr

Tibor Duris Head of Energy Department Photographs of the PetrochemaRadianWEC team

and some of the analytical equipment are presented in Attachment A

1 December 1993 the analyzer was unpacked and installed in the White OilOn From 2 December through 5 December test dataPlant in preparation for data colle-tion

were collected for the optimization of SO3 production and minimization of SO2 emissions in

the White Oil Plant On 6 December the WECRadianPetrochema team reviewed the

proposed test plan for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge (this testing was

conducted by the Petrochema staff in March 1994) On 6 and 7 December Jim Howes of

Radian conducted classroom and field training for the SO 2 analyzer which was used to collect On 8 December we met with Mr Jfnthe waste minimization test data for both projects

Matag General Director to present our preliminary visit findings

Returning to Bratislava on Thursday 9 December we met with Mr Ivan Sojka

Chief of Environmental Group and Mr Andrej Soltes Engineer at the Ministry of Economy

We also met with Mr Ivan Hejda Head of Chemia and Mr Lorento reiterate our findings Schulze and Mr Martin Brunovsky of US Agency for International Development (USAID)

to discuss the current status of our project at Petrochema and possible future action

As agreed during our December visit Petrochema staff completed a series of

incineration tests in March 1994 The purpose of these subsequent tests was to determine the

effectiveness of the neutralization of Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon

incineration Petrochema forwarded the March test results to Radian for analysis in May

1994

3q

RADIAN CORPORATION

40 WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NOI OPTIMIZATION OF SO 3 PRODUCTION IN THE WHITE OIL PLANT

The optimization of SO3 production and its subsequent usage during white oil production involved testing the performance of two stages in the production process The

two-step performance test measured the efficiency of 1) the vanadium pentoxide (V205 ) conversion catalyst which converts S02 to S03 and 2) the caustic scrubber which captures unconverted SO2 at the end of the process line Figure 1 shows a simplified process flow of the overall white oil production process Figure 2 shows the process flow for the production

and consumption of SO 3 in the White Oil Plant

Step one involved a performance test conducted on the V20 5 conversion catalyst This catalyst converts SO2 into SO 3 for use in sulphonating white oil feedstock Unconverted SO 2 passes through the white oil production system and is treated in a caustic scrubber at the tail end of the plant The objective of this first step was to increase the conversion of SO 3 thereby decreasing the amount of unreacted SO 2 left to pass through the system to the scrubber Excessive unreacted SO 2 could potentially overwhelm the scrubbers design capability resulting in high SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Parameters which could be varied to optimize SO3 converter efficiency were sulfur feed rate inlet bed catalyst temperature system pressure air feed rate and residence time (by additional catalyst) Only sulfur feed rate and inlet bed catalyst temperature were varied during the December 1993 test program

Step two of this optimization project involved a performance test conducted on the caustic scrubber ensuring that unreacted SO2 emissions do not pass through the scrubber to the atmosphere The main parameter which could be varied to optimize caustic scrubber performance was the rate of fresh caustic fed to the scrubber

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the optimization of SO3 in the White Oil Plant are presented in the following sections

41 Test Program Objectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Optimize the production of SO 3 from SO 2 in the V20 5 catalytic converter

Optimize the caustic scrubber operation to minimize SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Demonstrate compliance with the recently received (June 1993) scrubber 3 emissions permit limit for SO of 2500 mgn

4O

--

42

RADIAN CORPORATION

If successful in optimizing the converter and the scrubber quantify the

following

Actual reduction of scrubber SO2 emissions to the atmosphere

Net reduction in liquid sulfur feed volume

Net reduction in caustic consumption

Cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties for the period

1993-1998

Cost savings for reduction of liquid sulfur usage and

Cost savings for reduction in scrubber caustic usage

Test Methodology

Based on several discussions with Mr Majercik and Mr Vagner on

Wednesday 1 December we agreed to the following test plan to meet the test programs

The plan reflected what was technically feasible given the limitations of plantobjectives Specifically we agreed to vary theequipment and controls in the existing White Oil Plant

sulfur feed rate to the plant at rates ranging from 86 kghr to 120 kghr For each sulfur feed

rate condition the first bed inlet catalyst temperature was set to a reading that was considered optimal for that sulfur feed rate based upon the plant operators judgement Downstream

were determined by the inlet temperature ofcatalyst bed temperatures could not be varied and

the first bed

At the same time at each sulfur feed rate condition the caustic feed rate to the

was varied from 12 hr to 120 hr At each caustic rate the SO 2 concentration wasscrubber measured at the scrubber outlet to the atmosphere using the S02 analyzer provided by WEC

Figure 3 shows the location of the SO 2 measurement in relation to the scrubber From these an optimum caustic feed rate at eachoutlet SO 2 measurements we were able to determine

sulfur feed rate condition

measure aIn addition the scrubber was shut down at the end of each trial to

scrubber inlet concentration By taking both inlet and outlet SO 2 measurements for the Using these datascrubber the scrubber efficiency could be evaluated for each caustic rate

an overall assessment could also be made of the adequacy of the scrubber design to meet the

new permit emission limits for SO 2 from the scrubber given the existing converter catalyst

inlet loading to the scrubberperformance and resultant SO

Finally the scrubber inlet SO2 concentration measurement at each sulfur feed

an overall SO 2 balance around the catalytic converter Byrate could also be used to perform

5 11

43

RADIAN CORPORATION

performing this material balance the efficiency of the catalytic converter could be estimated and compared with expected design efficiency (conversion)

Following the test methodology described above live test trials were performed at sulfur feed rates of 86 90 100 106 and 120 kghr respectively First bed inlet catalyst temperatures were set at optimal conditions based upon operator judgement Generally the first bed inlet temperatures and the resultant converter temperature profile were consistent with literature values (400-430 C) for proper reaction kinetics and thermodynamic conversion

Within each trial the water rate to the scrubber was held approximately constant in the range of 15-18 1min The caustic feed rate however was varied from 12 to 120 lhr depending on the trial Scrubber outlet SO 2 concentrations were measured at each new caustic feed rate At the end of each trial a scrubber inlet SO 2 concentration was measured It should be noted that in all cases but one the inlet S02 was too high to be read on-scale by the analyzer For purposes of completing the SO 2 material balance around the catalytic converter and calciulating a converter efficiency we diluted the sample on the fifth trial (90 kghr sulfur) with air and obtained an on-scale reading

Test Results

The discussion of the test results is focused relative to our test objectives Test data sheets for each trial and graphs of the individual trials showing scrubber outlet SO 2

concentrations versus caustic feed rate are provided in Attachment B Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment C

Catalytic Converter Optimization and Efficiency

For catalytic converter efficiency we determined that the catalyst in the converter is achieving less than 70 conversion compared with a design conversion of 96 percent The sample calculation is shown as C-I in Attachment C The material balance which supports this converter efficiency calculation was performed for Trial No 5 at a sulfur feed rate of 90 kghr The off-scale measurements for inlet SO2 concentrations in Trial Nos 1-4 lend further support to the conclusion that the converter is operating well below the design efficiency

We were able to determine that the catalyst efficiency was generally low after the first four days of testing It was felt at the time of testing that small gains in converter efficiency (0-3) could be achieved by continuing the optimization tests However based upon such a low efficiency relative to design it was hypothesized that the catalyst was damaged by either poisoning aging or sintering Given the low efficiency the tests were terminated pending future resolution of the catalyst issue

6

RADIAN COItPORATION

Caustic Scrubber Optimization

While collecting the converter optimization data we were also collecting data

to optimize the caustic scrubber performance As discussed earlier we chose to vary fresh

caustic feed rate in each trial Figure 4 shows the correlation between caustic feed rate and

outlet SO2 emissions from the scrubber to the atmosphere Generally as liquid sulfur feed

rate to the plant increased the outlet SO 2 emissions from the scrubber also incresed at a

given caustic feed rate This observation is most evident on the graph at 40 Ihr caustic

Assuming a fairly constant scrubber efficiency this suggests tha no clear optimum sulfur feed

rate was found The inefficient converter passed more unreacted SO 2 with increasing sulfur

feed rate which in turn resulted in a higher outlet concentration of SO 2 from the scrubber

At each sulfur feed rate it was observed without exception that as caustic feed

rate increased outlet scrubber SO 2 emissions decreased From Figure 4 it appears that the

curve has two parts a steep decline in SO 2 emissions from 0-40 1hr caustic feed rate

Between 40 and 60 lhr depending upon the liquid sulfur feed rate the curve flattens out

From approximately 50 Ihr to 120 1hr caustic (maximum caustic feed pump rate) relative

SO emissions reductions are smaller per unit increase of caustic

The caustic scrubber efficiency ranges from an estimated 73 in Trial 5 at 40

Ihr caustic to 90-93 in Trials 1-4 Some sample calculations for scrubber efficiency are

provided as calculation C-2 in Attachment C Therefore it appears from the data set that the

scrubber can achieve good efficiency (gt90) However it is continuously being heavily

loaded with unconverted 302 from the catalytic converter

SO 2 Emissions Compliance

Achieving compliance with the new (June 1993) SO 2 scrubber emissions limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) will require that Petrochema generally increase the caustic feed

rate from typical levels of 12-20 Ihr to 60-70 lhr This represents a 250-400 increase in

the amount of caustic the plant will now use to achieve compliance for SO 2 emissions It also

should be noted that at these higher caustic feed levels Petiochema will achieve compliance

but not by much Figure 4 can be used as a SO 2 emissions compliance curve for the existing

catalyst in the SO 2 converter

Some preliminary calculations Radiaa performed (not shown) suggest that at

least two to three times the stoichiometric amount of caustic is necessary to achieve

compliance This further suggests that the inefficient SO2 converter may be overloading the

design capability of the caustic scrubber

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Despite the low converter efficiency the scrubber optimization tests

demonstrated a reduction of outlet SO emissions to the atmosphere from 10000 mgm3 (3836

ppmv) reported during our May 1993 visit and observed during our December 1993 visit to

31

44

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 13: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

RADIAN CORPORATION

40 WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NOI OPTIMIZATION OF SO 3 PRODUCTION IN THE WHITE OIL PLANT

The optimization of SO3 production and its subsequent usage during white oil production involved testing the performance of two stages in the production process The

two-step performance test measured the efficiency of 1) the vanadium pentoxide (V205 ) conversion catalyst which converts S02 to S03 and 2) the caustic scrubber which captures unconverted SO2 at the end of the process line Figure 1 shows a simplified process flow of the overall white oil production process Figure 2 shows the process flow for the production

and consumption of SO 3 in the White Oil Plant

Step one involved a performance test conducted on the V20 5 conversion catalyst This catalyst converts SO2 into SO 3 for use in sulphonating white oil feedstock Unconverted SO 2 passes through the white oil production system and is treated in a caustic scrubber at the tail end of the plant The objective of this first step was to increase the conversion of SO 3 thereby decreasing the amount of unreacted SO 2 left to pass through the system to the scrubber Excessive unreacted SO 2 could potentially overwhelm the scrubbers design capability resulting in high SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Parameters which could be varied to optimize SO3 converter efficiency were sulfur feed rate inlet bed catalyst temperature system pressure air feed rate and residence time (by additional catalyst) Only sulfur feed rate and inlet bed catalyst temperature were varied during the December 1993 test program

Step two of this optimization project involved a performance test conducted on the caustic scrubber ensuring that unreacted SO2 emissions do not pass through the scrubber to the atmosphere The main parameter which could be varied to optimize caustic scrubber performance was the rate of fresh caustic fed to the scrubber

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the optimization of SO3 in the White Oil Plant are presented in the following sections

41 Test Program Objectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Optimize the production of SO 3 from SO 2 in the V20 5 catalytic converter

Optimize the caustic scrubber operation to minimize SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere

Demonstrate compliance with the recently received (June 1993) scrubber 3 emissions permit limit for SO of 2500 mgn

4O

--

42

RADIAN CORPORATION

If successful in optimizing the converter and the scrubber quantify the

following

Actual reduction of scrubber SO2 emissions to the atmosphere

Net reduction in liquid sulfur feed volume

Net reduction in caustic consumption

Cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties for the period

1993-1998

Cost savings for reduction of liquid sulfur usage and

Cost savings for reduction in scrubber caustic usage

Test Methodology

Based on several discussions with Mr Majercik and Mr Vagner on

Wednesday 1 December we agreed to the following test plan to meet the test programs

The plan reflected what was technically feasible given the limitations of plantobjectives Specifically we agreed to vary theequipment and controls in the existing White Oil Plant

sulfur feed rate to the plant at rates ranging from 86 kghr to 120 kghr For each sulfur feed

rate condition the first bed inlet catalyst temperature was set to a reading that was considered optimal for that sulfur feed rate based upon the plant operators judgement Downstream

were determined by the inlet temperature ofcatalyst bed temperatures could not be varied and

the first bed

At the same time at each sulfur feed rate condition the caustic feed rate to the

was varied from 12 hr to 120 hr At each caustic rate the SO 2 concentration wasscrubber measured at the scrubber outlet to the atmosphere using the S02 analyzer provided by WEC

Figure 3 shows the location of the SO 2 measurement in relation to the scrubber From these an optimum caustic feed rate at eachoutlet SO 2 measurements we were able to determine

sulfur feed rate condition

measure aIn addition the scrubber was shut down at the end of each trial to

scrubber inlet concentration By taking both inlet and outlet SO 2 measurements for the Using these datascrubber the scrubber efficiency could be evaluated for each caustic rate

an overall assessment could also be made of the adequacy of the scrubber design to meet the

new permit emission limits for SO 2 from the scrubber given the existing converter catalyst

inlet loading to the scrubberperformance and resultant SO

Finally the scrubber inlet SO2 concentration measurement at each sulfur feed

an overall SO 2 balance around the catalytic converter Byrate could also be used to perform

5 11

43

RADIAN CORPORATION

performing this material balance the efficiency of the catalytic converter could be estimated and compared with expected design efficiency (conversion)

Following the test methodology described above live test trials were performed at sulfur feed rates of 86 90 100 106 and 120 kghr respectively First bed inlet catalyst temperatures were set at optimal conditions based upon operator judgement Generally the first bed inlet temperatures and the resultant converter temperature profile were consistent with literature values (400-430 C) for proper reaction kinetics and thermodynamic conversion

Within each trial the water rate to the scrubber was held approximately constant in the range of 15-18 1min The caustic feed rate however was varied from 12 to 120 lhr depending on the trial Scrubber outlet SO 2 concentrations were measured at each new caustic feed rate At the end of each trial a scrubber inlet SO 2 concentration was measured It should be noted that in all cases but one the inlet S02 was too high to be read on-scale by the analyzer For purposes of completing the SO 2 material balance around the catalytic converter and calciulating a converter efficiency we diluted the sample on the fifth trial (90 kghr sulfur) with air and obtained an on-scale reading

Test Results

The discussion of the test results is focused relative to our test objectives Test data sheets for each trial and graphs of the individual trials showing scrubber outlet SO 2

concentrations versus caustic feed rate are provided in Attachment B Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment C

Catalytic Converter Optimization and Efficiency

For catalytic converter efficiency we determined that the catalyst in the converter is achieving less than 70 conversion compared with a design conversion of 96 percent The sample calculation is shown as C-I in Attachment C The material balance which supports this converter efficiency calculation was performed for Trial No 5 at a sulfur feed rate of 90 kghr The off-scale measurements for inlet SO2 concentrations in Trial Nos 1-4 lend further support to the conclusion that the converter is operating well below the design efficiency

We were able to determine that the catalyst efficiency was generally low after the first four days of testing It was felt at the time of testing that small gains in converter efficiency (0-3) could be achieved by continuing the optimization tests However based upon such a low efficiency relative to design it was hypothesized that the catalyst was damaged by either poisoning aging or sintering Given the low efficiency the tests were terminated pending future resolution of the catalyst issue

6

RADIAN COItPORATION

Caustic Scrubber Optimization

While collecting the converter optimization data we were also collecting data

to optimize the caustic scrubber performance As discussed earlier we chose to vary fresh

caustic feed rate in each trial Figure 4 shows the correlation between caustic feed rate and

outlet SO2 emissions from the scrubber to the atmosphere Generally as liquid sulfur feed

rate to the plant increased the outlet SO 2 emissions from the scrubber also incresed at a

given caustic feed rate This observation is most evident on the graph at 40 Ihr caustic

Assuming a fairly constant scrubber efficiency this suggests tha no clear optimum sulfur feed

rate was found The inefficient converter passed more unreacted SO 2 with increasing sulfur

feed rate which in turn resulted in a higher outlet concentration of SO 2 from the scrubber

At each sulfur feed rate it was observed without exception that as caustic feed

rate increased outlet scrubber SO 2 emissions decreased From Figure 4 it appears that the

curve has two parts a steep decline in SO 2 emissions from 0-40 1hr caustic feed rate

Between 40 and 60 lhr depending upon the liquid sulfur feed rate the curve flattens out

From approximately 50 Ihr to 120 1hr caustic (maximum caustic feed pump rate) relative

SO emissions reductions are smaller per unit increase of caustic

The caustic scrubber efficiency ranges from an estimated 73 in Trial 5 at 40

Ihr caustic to 90-93 in Trials 1-4 Some sample calculations for scrubber efficiency are

provided as calculation C-2 in Attachment C Therefore it appears from the data set that the

scrubber can achieve good efficiency (gt90) However it is continuously being heavily

loaded with unconverted 302 from the catalytic converter

SO 2 Emissions Compliance

Achieving compliance with the new (June 1993) SO 2 scrubber emissions limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) will require that Petrochema generally increase the caustic feed

rate from typical levels of 12-20 Ihr to 60-70 lhr This represents a 250-400 increase in

the amount of caustic the plant will now use to achieve compliance for SO 2 emissions It also

should be noted that at these higher caustic feed levels Petiochema will achieve compliance

but not by much Figure 4 can be used as a SO 2 emissions compliance curve for the existing

catalyst in the SO 2 converter

Some preliminary calculations Radiaa performed (not shown) suggest that at

least two to three times the stoichiometric amount of caustic is necessary to achieve

compliance This further suggests that the inefficient SO2 converter may be overloading the

design capability of the caustic scrubber

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Despite the low converter efficiency the scrubber optimization tests

demonstrated a reduction of outlet SO emissions to the atmosphere from 10000 mgm3 (3836

ppmv) reported during our May 1993 visit and observed during our December 1993 visit to

31

44

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 14: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

--

42

RADIAN CORPORATION

If successful in optimizing the converter and the scrubber quantify the

following

Actual reduction of scrubber SO2 emissions to the atmosphere

Net reduction in liquid sulfur feed volume

Net reduction in caustic consumption

Cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties for the period

1993-1998

Cost savings for reduction of liquid sulfur usage and

Cost savings for reduction in scrubber caustic usage

Test Methodology

Based on several discussions with Mr Majercik and Mr Vagner on

Wednesday 1 December we agreed to the following test plan to meet the test programs

The plan reflected what was technically feasible given the limitations of plantobjectives Specifically we agreed to vary theequipment and controls in the existing White Oil Plant

sulfur feed rate to the plant at rates ranging from 86 kghr to 120 kghr For each sulfur feed

rate condition the first bed inlet catalyst temperature was set to a reading that was considered optimal for that sulfur feed rate based upon the plant operators judgement Downstream

were determined by the inlet temperature ofcatalyst bed temperatures could not be varied and

the first bed

At the same time at each sulfur feed rate condition the caustic feed rate to the

was varied from 12 hr to 120 hr At each caustic rate the SO 2 concentration wasscrubber measured at the scrubber outlet to the atmosphere using the S02 analyzer provided by WEC

Figure 3 shows the location of the SO 2 measurement in relation to the scrubber From these an optimum caustic feed rate at eachoutlet SO 2 measurements we were able to determine

sulfur feed rate condition

measure aIn addition the scrubber was shut down at the end of each trial to

scrubber inlet concentration By taking both inlet and outlet SO 2 measurements for the Using these datascrubber the scrubber efficiency could be evaluated for each caustic rate

an overall assessment could also be made of the adequacy of the scrubber design to meet the

new permit emission limits for SO 2 from the scrubber given the existing converter catalyst

inlet loading to the scrubberperformance and resultant SO

Finally the scrubber inlet SO2 concentration measurement at each sulfur feed

an overall SO 2 balance around the catalytic converter Byrate could also be used to perform

5 11

43

RADIAN CORPORATION

performing this material balance the efficiency of the catalytic converter could be estimated and compared with expected design efficiency (conversion)

Following the test methodology described above live test trials were performed at sulfur feed rates of 86 90 100 106 and 120 kghr respectively First bed inlet catalyst temperatures were set at optimal conditions based upon operator judgement Generally the first bed inlet temperatures and the resultant converter temperature profile were consistent with literature values (400-430 C) for proper reaction kinetics and thermodynamic conversion

Within each trial the water rate to the scrubber was held approximately constant in the range of 15-18 1min The caustic feed rate however was varied from 12 to 120 lhr depending on the trial Scrubber outlet SO 2 concentrations were measured at each new caustic feed rate At the end of each trial a scrubber inlet SO 2 concentration was measured It should be noted that in all cases but one the inlet S02 was too high to be read on-scale by the analyzer For purposes of completing the SO 2 material balance around the catalytic converter and calciulating a converter efficiency we diluted the sample on the fifth trial (90 kghr sulfur) with air and obtained an on-scale reading

Test Results

The discussion of the test results is focused relative to our test objectives Test data sheets for each trial and graphs of the individual trials showing scrubber outlet SO 2

concentrations versus caustic feed rate are provided in Attachment B Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment C

Catalytic Converter Optimization and Efficiency

For catalytic converter efficiency we determined that the catalyst in the converter is achieving less than 70 conversion compared with a design conversion of 96 percent The sample calculation is shown as C-I in Attachment C The material balance which supports this converter efficiency calculation was performed for Trial No 5 at a sulfur feed rate of 90 kghr The off-scale measurements for inlet SO2 concentrations in Trial Nos 1-4 lend further support to the conclusion that the converter is operating well below the design efficiency

We were able to determine that the catalyst efficiency was generally low after the first four days of testing It was felt at the time of testing that small gains in converter efficiency (0-3) could be achieved by continuing the optimization tests However based upon such a low efficiency relative to design it was hypothesized that the catalyst was damaged by either poisoning aging or sintering Given the low efficiency the tests were terminated pending future resolution of the catalyst issue

6

RADIAN COItPORATION

Caustic Scrubber Optimization

While collecting the converter optimization data we were also collecting data

to optimize the caustic scrubber performance As discussed earlier we chose to vary fresh

caustic feed rate in each trial Figure 4 shows the correlation between caustic feed rate and

outlet SO2 emissions from the scrubber to the atmosphere Generally as liquid sulfur feed

rate to the plant increased the outlet SO 2 emissions from the scrubber also incresed at a

given caustic feed rate This observation is most evident on the graph at 40 Ihr caustic

Assuming a fairly constant scrubber efficiency this suggests tha no clear optimum sulfur feed

rate was found The inefficient converter passed more unreacted SO 2 with increasing sulfur

feed rate which in turn resulted in a higher outlet concentration of SO 2 from the scrubber

At each sulfur feed rate it was observed without exception that as caustic feed

rate increased outlet scrubber SO 2 emissions decreased From Figure 4 it appears that the

curve has two parts a steep decline in SO 2 emissions from 0-40 1hr caustic feed rate

Between 40 and 60 lhr depending upon the liquid sulfur feed rate the curve flattens out

From approximately 50 Ihr to 120 1hr caustic (maximum caustic feed pump rate) relative

SO emissions reductions are smaller per unit increase of caustic

The caustic scrubber efficiency ranges from an estimated 73 in Trial 5 at 40

Ihr caustic to 90-93 in Trials 1-4 Some sample calculations for scrubber efficiency are

provided as calculation C-2 in Attachment C Therefore it appears from the data set that the

scrubber can achieve good efficiency (gt90) However it is continuously being heavily

loaded with unconverted 302 from the catalytic converter

SO 2 Emissions Compliance

Achieving compliance with the new (June 1993) SO 2 scrubber emissions limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) will require that Petrochema generally increase the caustic feed

rate from typical levels of 12-20 Ihr to 60-70 lhr This represents a 250-400 increase in

the amount of caustic the plant will now use to achieve compliance for SO 2 emissions It also

should be noted that at these higher caustic feed levels Petiochema will achieve compliance

but not by much Figure 4 can be used as a SO 2 emissions compliance curve for the existing

catalyst in the SO 2 converter

Some preliminary calculations Radiaa performed (not shown) suggest that at

least two to three times the stoichiometric amount of caustic is necessary to achieve

compliance This further suggests that the inefficient SO2 converter may be overloading the

design capability of the caustic scrubber

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Despite the low converter efficiency the scrubber optimization tests

demonstrated a reduction of outlet SO emissions to the atmosphere from 10000 mgm3 (3836

ppmv) reported during our May 1993 visit and observed during our December 1993 visit to

31

44

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 15: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

43

RADIAN CORPORATION

performing this material balance the efficiency of the catalytic converter could be estimated and compared with expected design efficiency (conversion)

Following the test methodology described above live test trials were performed at sulfur feed rates of 86 90 100 106 and 120 kghr respectively First bed inlet catalyst temperatures were set at optimal conditions based upon operator judgement Generally the first bed inlet temperatures and the resultant converter temperature profile were consistent with literature values (400-430 C) for proper reaction kinetics and thermodynamic conversion

Within each trial the water rate to the scrubber was held approximately constant in the range of 15-18 1min The caustic feed rate however was varied from 12 to 120 lhr depending on the trial Scrubber outlet SO 2 concentrations were measured at each new caustic feed rate At the end of each trial a scrubber inlet SO 2 concentration was measured It should be noted that in all cases but one the inlet S02 was too high to be read on-scale by the analyzer For purposes of completing the SO 2 material balance around the catalytic converter and calciulating a converter efficiency we diluted the sample on the fifth trial (90 kghr sulfur) with air and obtained an on-scale reading

Test Results

The discussion of the test results is focused relative to our test objectives Test data sheets for each trial and graphs of the individual trials showing scrubber outlet SO 2

concentrations versus caustic feed rate are provided in Attachment B Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment C

Catalytic Converter Optimization and Efficiency

For catalytic converter efficiency we determined that the catalyst in the converter is achieving less than 70 conversion compared with a design conversion of 96 percent The sample calculation is shown as C-I in Attachment C The material balance which supports this converter efficiency calculation was performed for Trial No 5 at a sulfur feed rate of 90 kghr The off-scale measurements for inlet SO2 concentrations in Trial Nos 1-4 lend further support to the conclusion that the converter is operating well below the design efficiency

We were able to determine that the catalyst efficiency was generally low after the first four days of testing It was felt at the time of testing that small gains in converter efficiency (0-3) could be achieved by continuing the optimization tests However based upon such a low efficiency relative to design it was hypothesized that the catalyst was damaged by either poisoning aging or sintering Given the low efficiency the tests were terminated pending future resolution of the catalyst issue

6

RADIAN COItPORATION

Caustic Scrubber Optimization

While collecting the converter optimization data we were also collecting data

to optimize the caustic scrubber performance As discussed earlier we chose to vary fresh

caustic feed rate in each trial Figure 4 shows the correlation between caustic feed rate and

outlet SO2 emissions from the scrubber to the atmosphere Generally as liquid sulfur feed

rate to the plant increased the outlet SO 2 emissions from the scrubber also incresed at a

given caustic feed rate This observation is most evident on the graph at 40 Ihr caustic

Assuming a fairly constant scrubber efficiency this suggests tha no clear optimum sulfur feed

rate was found The inefficient converter passed more unreacted SO 2 with increasing sulfur

feed rate which in turn resulted in a higher outlet concentration of SO 2 from the scrubber

At each sulfur feed rate it was observed without exception that as caustic feed

rate increased outlet scrubber SO 2 emissions decreased From Figure 4 it appears that the

curve has two parts a steep decline in SO 2 emissions from 0-40 1hr caustic feed rate

Between 40 and 60 lhr depending upon the liquid sulfur feed rate the curve flattens out

From approximately 50 Ihr to 120 1hr caustic (maximum caustic feed pump rate) relative

SO emissions reductions are smaller per unit increase of caustic

The caustic scrubber efficiency ranges from an estimated 73 in Trial 5 at 40

Ihr caustic to 90-93 in Trials 1-4 Some sample calculations for scrubber efficiency are

provided as calculation C-2 in Attachment C Therefore it appears from the data set that the

scrubber can achieve good efficiency (gt90) However it is continuously being heavily

loaded with unconverted 302 from the catalytic converter

SO 2 Emissions Compliance

Achieving compliance with the new (June 1993) SO 2 scrubber emissions limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) will require that Petrochema generally increase the caustic feed

rate from typical levels of 12-20 Ihr to 60-70 lhr This represents a 250-400 increase in

the amount of caustic the plant will now use to achieve compliance for SO 2 emissions It also

should be noted that at these higher caustic feed levels Petiochema will achieve compliance

but not by much Figure 4 can be used as a SO 2 emissions compliance curve for the existing

catalyst in the SO 2 converter

Some preliminary calculations Radiaa performed (not shown) suggest that at

least two to three times the stoichiometric amount of caustic is necessary to achieve

compliance This further suggests that the inefficient SO2 converter may be overloading the

design capability of the caustic scrubber

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Despite the low converter efficiency the scrubber optimization tests

demonstrated a reduction of outlet SO emissions to the atmosphere from 10000 mgm3 (3836

ppmv) reported during our May 1993 visit and observed during our December 1993 visit to

31

44

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 16: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

RADIAN COItPORATION

Caustic Scrubber Optimization

While collecting the converter optimization data we were also collecting data

to optimize the caustic scrubber performance As discussed earlier we chose to vary fresh

caustic feed rate in each trial Figure 4 shows the correlation between caustic feed rate and

outlet SO2 emissions from the scrubber to the atmosphere Generally as liquid sulfur feed

rate to the plant increased the outlet SO 2 emissions from the scrubber also incresed at a

given caustic feed rate This observation is most evident on the graph at 40 Ihr caustic

Assuming a fairly constant scrubber efficiency this suggests tha no clear optimum sulfur feed

rate was found The inefficient converter passed more unreacted SO 2 with increasing sulfur

feed rate which in turn resulted in a higher outlet concentration of SO 2 from the scrubber

At each sulfur feed rate it was observed without exception that as caustic feed

rate increased outlet scrubber SO 2 emissions decreased From Figure 4 it appears that the

curve has two parts a steep decline in SO 2 emissions from 0-40 1hr caustic feed rate

Between 40 and 60 lhr depending upon the liquid sulfur feed rate the curve flattens out

From approximately 50 Ihr to 120 1hr caustic (maximum caustic feed pump rate) relative

SO emissions reductions are smaller per unit increase of caustic

The caustic scrubber efficiency ranges from an estimated 73 in Trial 5 at 40

Ihr caustic to 90-93 in Trials 1-4 Some sample calculations for scrubber efficiency are

provided as calculation C-2 in Attachment C Therefore it appears from the data set that the

scrubber can achieve good efficiency (gt90) However it is continuously being heavily

loaded with unconverted 302 from the catalytic converter

SO 2 Emissions Compliance

Achieving compliance with the new (June 1993) SO 2 scrubber emissions limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) will require that Petrochema generally increase the caustic feed

rate from typical levels of 12-20 Ihr to 60-70 lhr This represents a 250-400 increase in

the amount of caustic the plant will now use to achieve compliance for SO 2 emissions It also

should be noted that at these higher caustic feed levels Petiochema will achieve compliance

but not by much Figure 4 can be used as a SO 2 emissions compliance curve for the existing

catalyst in the SO 2 converter

Some preliminary calculations Radiaa performed (not shown) suggest that at

least two to three times the stoichiometric amount of caustic is necessary to achieve

compliance This further suggests that the inefficient SO2 converter may be overloading the

design capability of the caustic scrubber

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Despite the low converter efficiency the scrubber optimization tests

demonstrated a reduction of outlet SO emissions to the atmosphere from 10000 mgm3 (3836

ppmv) reported during our May 1993 visit and observed during our December 1993 visit to

31

44

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 17: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

RADIAN CORPORATION

-2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) This reduction represents a 75 reduction in SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the caustic scrubber On a mass basis this decrease is equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The cost savings in reduced S02 emissions penalties from the scrubber should be approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for the period 1993-1998 However these cost savings come at the additional expense of increased caustic usage This increase in caustic is due to the low conversion being achieved by the existing catalyst in the S02 converter

By replacing the existing catalyst with new catalyst it is projected that improved S02 converter performance will decrease

SO 2 scrubber outlet emissions further

The caustic feed rate to the scrubber required for S02 permit emissions compliance and

The liquid sulfur feed rate to the White Oil Plant required for acceptable sulphonation

With the addition of new catalyst SO 2 scrubber outlet emivions to the atmosphere may be reduced to as low as 300 mgm3 (-120 ppmv) This level of emissions would represent a 97 reduction in SO 2 emissions from this source based on the 10000 mgm 3 SO 2 emissions reported during our May 1993 visit Supporting calculations are provided as C-3 in Attachment C

The addition of new catalyst should also provide corresponding reductions in caustic and liquid sulfur consumption Calculations provided as C-4 in Attachment C indicate that caustic savings could total 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000-US$35000) per year if the new SO 2 converter catalyst allowed caustic feed rates to be decreased by 40-50 Ihr In addition an improvement in new catalyst efficiency of 26 should result in liquid sulfur feed rate reductions of -26 kghr (100 kghr basis) The cost savings associated with this reduction in liquid sulfur consumption are estimated to be 285000 Slovak Korunas (US$10000) per year

In summary these total savings of potentially more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year may show that converter catalyst replacement both reduces SO 2 emissions further and is an economic payout

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the December 1993 testing of the White Oil Plant operation we conclude and recommend the following

8

45

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 18: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

RADIAN CORPORATION

Based upon an S02 system material balance the S02 converter appears

to be operating at less than 70 conversion efficiency This efficiency The lowis significantly less than the design efficiency of 96 percent

converter efficiency results in a heavy loading of unreacted SO to pass

through the white oil system to the caustic scrubber

Despite the heavy loading of SO 2 from the converter the caustic

scrubber is operating well achieving greater than 90 conversion in

most cases To achieve compliance with the SO 2 scrubber permit limit

of 2500 mgm3 (-960 ppmv) using the existing converter catalyst

caustic feed rates must be increased to between 60-70 Ihr depending

upon the oil and sulfur feed rates This increase represents a 250-400

increase in current caustic usage

The White Oil Plant optimization tests demonstrated a 75 reduction in This decrease is

SO 2 emissions to the atmosphere from the scrubber equivalent to a reduction of 70 metric tons of SO 2 annually

Specifically based on the test data collected and shown in Figure 4 it

be concluded that at the existing plant conditions by burning liquidcan sulfur at the rate of 100 kghour and using a caustic rate in the scrubber

of 60-70 1hour the sulfur dioxide emission concentration from the

scrubber is found to be 960 ppmv which satisfies the regulatory

requirement It is recommended that Petrochema operate the White Oil

Plant at o neal these specific operating conditions This operation will

result in a regulatory penalty cost savings from reduced sulfur dioxide

emissions of approximately 300000 Slovak Korunas or US$10000 for

the period 1993-1998

It is recommended that Petrochema change the catalyst in the SO 2

Changing the SO 2 converter catalyst should significantlyconverter reduce scrubber inlet and outlet emissions scrubber caustic feed rates

required for compliance and liquid sulfur feed rates to the White Oil

By changing the catalyst in the converter Petrochema will savePlant annually 840000 to more than 1000000 Slovak Korunas (US$28000shy

US$35000) in caustic reduction and 285000 Slovak Korunas

(US$10000) in liquid sulfur consumption

The total incremental cost savings realized by changing catalyst may be

more than 1285000 Slovak Korunas (US$45000) per year The

economic savings associated with the process benefits of new catalyst

may pay for the cost of new catalyst

new converterSO 2 outlet emissions from the caustic scrubber with

These emissionscatalyst could be as low as 300 mgn 3 (-120 ppmv)

9 1e

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 19: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

50

RADIANCORPORATION

reductions should result in improving regional air quality and aid in preserving the pristine nature of the two national forests adjacent to

Dubova

Fine mists of SO3 are not absorbed and removed in the caustic scrubber and escape into the atmosphere through the stack in the form of a

plume It is recommended that a Brink mist eliminator be installed at

the exit section of the scrubber to contain these SO 3 mists

WASTE MINIMIZATION TEST PROGRAM NO2 GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

Goudron sludge is a tarry viscous hydrocarbon pitch which is generated as a

waste product from the sulphonation of white oil feedstock Goudron sludge quality varies

but contains components with the following compositions ranging by weight percent

Oil - 10 to 60

Water - 5 to 25

Sulphonic acid - 10 to 45 and

o Sulfuric acid - 10 to 90 percent

The main goal of the test program was to measure the effectiveness of the neutralization of

Goudron sludge in reducing SO 2 emissions upon incineration To achieve this goal we have

proposed conducting comparative incinerator trial burns of neutralized and unneut alized sludge of similar composition

Neutralization of Goudron sludge prior to incineration involves mixing alkaline

wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) with the acidic Goudron sludge The neutralization

reaction removes sulfur as a sulfate salt precipitate As a result the SO 2 emissions generated

during the incineration of Goudron sludge are reduced by a corresponding amount Both

bench and pilot testing of this neutralization process had been previously conducted with encouraging results

Alternatively lime [Ca(OH) 2] may be used as a neutralizing agent Some of

the previous bench and pilot tests included the successful use of lime For purposes of this

waste minimization demonstration project lime was not used in any of the test trials

It should be noted that there are differences in composition primarily acid

content between old Goudron sludge and fresh Goudron sludge Old Goudron sludge is

sludge which has been previously generated by White Oil Plant operation and then

subsequently stored at either two off-sitc landfills or one that is located on site Fresh

Goudron sludge is sludge which has been more immediately generated by ongoing White Oil

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 20: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

RADIAN O PORAT I0 10

Plant operation Generally old Goudron sludge is less acidic and easier to neutralize than fresh sludge Old Goudron sludge has been successfully neutralized and was used during the performance of this waste minimization test At the same time Petrochema (and its contractor) are conducting ongoing pilot tests for the potential successful neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge Some of the difficulties associated with the neutralization of fresh Goudron sludge have been documented previously in Radians Technical Memorandum titled Petrochema Site Visit Report and Recommendations (8 June 1993)

The test program objectives test methodology test results emissions reductions and economic savings and conclusions and recommendations associated with the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge are presented in the following sections

51 Test Program Obiectives

The objectives of this test program were to

Demonstrate that the process of neutralizing Goudron sludge with wastewater treatment sludge will result in a significant reduction in SO 2

emissions when incinerated

Demonstrate compliance with the recently-received air permit limit (June 1993) of 3000 mgm 3 and

If successful quantify the following

-- Actual reduction of incinerator SO 2 emissions

Usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

Cost savings in reduced SO2 emissions penalties for the period 1993- 1998 and

Cost savings for reduced landfill disposal fees for the usage of wastewater treatment sludge and spent clay in the neutralization process

52 Test MethodoloMy

Seven incineration trials were conducted using various mixtures of Goudron sludge wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) oily-contaminated soil (CS) and sewage (SEW) The Goudron sludge component in the test trials was either water acid emulsion (WAE) from the dump (ie landfill) or actual sludge from the dump (SD) None of the trials used fresh Goudron sludge directly produced from the White Oil Plant I-

II

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 21: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

RADIAN CORPORATION

Three of the trials (Test Nos 2 3 and 4) utilized alkaline WTS as a neutralizing agent and represent partially nFtralized test mixtures The lbur remaining trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) represent unneutralized test mixtures

Figure 7 is a Trest Data Plan Collecton Form and generally summarizes the key data (with some deviations) which were collc cd for the neutralization and incineration of Goudron sludge testing

Table 1 details the waste feed type and characteristics Specifically pre-test measurenents of the waste feed components and thc resultant mixtures included

0 Total Feed Mass kg

0 Feed Type (WAE SD VTS CS amp SEW)

Proportion of Each Waste Type in Burn Mixture

Percentage Water

Acid Number

a Percentage Sulfuric Acid

Percentage Oil and

0 Total Sulfur

The acid numbers measured for the individual feed components and the resultant mixtures in Tests 2 3 and 4 were used to determine if the wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) was effective in neutralizing the acidic components of the Goudron sludge (WAE and SD)

The k-ey data collected during the incineration portion of the trial were

Test Start amp End Time

0 Incinerator Temperature degC

0 Excess Oxygen 02

0 Incinerator Flow m3hr and

o Incinerator SO2 Emissions ppm (measured by SO 2 analyzer)

The SO2 emissions data collected during the trials were used to determine if neutralized batches of Goudron sludge achieved lower SO2 emissions than corresponding unneutralized

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 22: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

53

RADIAN CORPORATION

batches We also performed a sulfur balance using the pre-test waste sulfur measurements (sulfur in) versus the sulfur emitted as SO2 from the incinerator (sulfur out) to confirm that the lower emissions represented a true reduction in waste SO2 emissions (ie waste minimization)

The incinerator SO2 emissions data were also used to determine if Petrochema could attain compliance with the permit limit of 3000 mgm3 (- 1150 ppmv)

Test Results

The discussion of the test data is focused relative to our test objectives The neutralization and incineration test data collected in March 1994 are provided in Attachment D Sample calculations supporting the following discussion of results are provided in Attachment E

Evidence of Neutralization

A review of the acid number data in Appendix D and in Table 1 for Test Nos 2 3 and 4 suggests that some neutralization may be occurring Specifically in Test No 2 the acidic SD initially had an acid number of 534 mg KOHg Mixing the alkaline WTS with the SD reduced the acid number of the resultant mixture to 16 mg NaOHg A similar reduction was achieved in Test No 4 In that trial the resultant mixture after neutralization by WTS had an acid number of zero This result implies that the Test No 4 mixture was essentially neutral

It should be noted that in Test No3 the waste treatment sludge was not mixed with the acidic dump sludge and waste acid emulsion prior to incineration Rather the water acid emulsion was fed to the incinerator by a separate nozzle The SO 2 emissions measured for this trial were the highest of all seven trials These high emissions suggest that separate dosing of water acid emulsion (without prior mixing) to the incinerator may not be an effective method of sludge neutralization Furthermore this technique will result in higher SO2 emissions than sludge mixtures of similar composition which have been pre-mixed

Evidence of Waste Minimization for SO 2 Emissions

Table 2 provides the raw (uncorrected) and corrected SO incinerator emissions versus time for each trial Additionally average minimum and maximum SO2 values are calculated and provided in Table 2 The raw S02 emissions were corrected to 11 02 and to a dry basis It should be noted however that these raw values were not corrected for pressure and to a sta~idard temperature Normally these two additional corrections are minor and would not change the resultant corrected SO2 value by more than 5 percent

13

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 23: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

RADIAN CORPORATION

The average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials (Test Nos 1 5 6 and 7) was 1077 ppmv The average corrected SO2 emissions coicentration for the neutralized trials (Tests 2 and 4) excluding Test No 3 was also 1077 ppmv (2795 rgm3) If Test No 3 is considered to be an unneutralized trial due to suspected poor mixing then the average S02 emissions concentration for the unneutralized trials iacreases to 1562 ppmv (4077 mgm3) Considering Test No 3 as an unneutraized trial the average unneutralized202 emissions were nearly 50 greater than the average neutralizedSO2 emissions (Test Nos 2 and 4) Although the neutralized trials demonstrated lower average SO2 emissions than the unneutralized trials the reduction may not be statistically significant due to the high standard deviation of the SO2 measurements Additional future tests will be able to confirm the conclusion that neutralized batches yield significantly lower average SO2 emissions

Despite the variability of the test measurements it should be noted that average neutralized S02 emissions of - 1075 ppmv (2795 mgm3) represent a reduction of 72 from previous SO2 measurements of greater than 3836 ppmv (gt 10000 mgm 3) reported by Petrochema in 1993 Assuming one metric ton of Goudron sludge burned per hour in the plants incinerator 24 hours per day 365 days per year the mass reduction of SO2 emissions from previously reported results is approximately 185 tons per year

Table 3 provides a summary of the incineration test data including the results of the sulffir balance Of special note is the column entitled Feed S Emitted which indicates the percentage of sulfur emitted as SO2 relative to the sulfur fed in the burned waste (including the supplemental fuel sulfur) Again there is evidence of some actual waste reductions for SO 2 when the sludge has been neutralized by the alkaline WTS Specifically only 89 of the sulfur fed iiTest No 2 and 43 of the sulfur fed in Test No 4 were emitted from the incinerator stack as SO The balance of the sulfur should be found as a sulfate sat in the incinerator ash

S02 Emissions Compliance

Despite the variability in the test measurements five of the seven trials achieved average S02 emissions which were less than Petrochemas permit limit of 1150 ppmv (3000 mgm 3) Excluding Test No 3 both neutralized trials (Test Nos 2 and 4) demonstrated average S02 emissions which were below the permit limit Therefore Petrochema may operate its incinerators at the mixture proportions demonstrated in Test Nos 2 and 4 with some confidence that they will not exceed their S02 permit limits on an average basis Additional testing will be required by Petrochema to determine other sludge ratios which can also achieve compliance with their SO2 permit limit

Emissions Reductions and Potential Economic Savings

Based upon the initial test results for the neutralization of Goudron sludge the following waste reduction and economic benefits can be realized

14

54

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 24: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

0

55

RADIAN CORPORATION

SO 2 cmissions from the facilitys incinerator when burning Goudron sludge can be reduced from 10000 mgm3 (3836 ppmv) to at least the new air permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) Actual concentrations for neutralized sludge mixtures averaged 2795 mgm 3

(1075 ppmv) or a net reduction of 72 over previously reported values Assuming one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned in the incinerator on average and 24 hourday operation 365 days per year a reduction of 185 metric tonsyear of SO2

emissions can be achieved

For the period 1993-1998 the cost savings in reduced SO 2 emissions penalties is estimated to be approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000

Both sludge from the wastewater treatment plant and spent clay from the white oil plant can be mixed with Goudron sludge and incinerated reducing the volume of these two waste materials requiring land disposal Landfill disposal costs are 1000 Slovak Korunas per metric ton plus 1500 Slovak Korunas in transportation costs for each 5 ton truckload Assuming a 50 mixture of wastewater treatment sludge for each neutralized batch of Goudron sludge and one metric ton of neutralized Goudron sludge per hour is burned on average in the incinerator estimated cost savings due to reduced landfill costs will be approximately 5700000 Slovak Korunas or US$185000 annually (Supporting calculations for landfill cost savings are provided as E-4 in Attachment E)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon the test results collected during the March 1994 testing of Goudron

sludge neutralization and incineration we conclude and recommend the following

Based upon the acid number measurements mixing alkaline wastewater treatment sludge does appear to neutralize the acidic Goudron sludge components However Petrochema should continue to refine their mixing techniques to ensure more intimate contact of the alkaline and acidic materials Better mixing should yield greater SO2 emissions reductions

0 The results from Test No 3 suggest that separate injection into the incinerator of WTS and Goudron sludge is not an effective mixing technique and yields relatively high S2 emissions

0 The Goudron sludge mixtures which were neutralized by WTS demonstrated average corrected incinerator SO2 emissions of

15

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 25: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

RADIAN CORPORATION

approximately 2795 mgm3 (1075 ppmv) These values represent an 72 reduction from previously reported values of 10000 mgm 3 (3836 ppmv) This reduction is equivalent to a reduction of 185 metric tons of SO 2 annually

The sulfur material balances we performed indicate evidence of actual waste minimization of incinerator SO2 emissions More accurate total sulfur combustion and time-weighted SO2 measurements in future tests are required to confirm these initial waste minimization reductions

All neutralized tests with pre-mixing of the feed components prior to incineration (Test Nos 2 and 4) achieved compliance on average with Petrochemas new S02 permit limit of 3000 mgm 3 (1150 ppmv) For the period 1993-1998 this compliance performance will save Petrocheina approximately 775000 Slovak Korunas or about US$25000 Petrochema should test additional sludge mixtures to determine other ratios which will achieve regulatory compliance

The usage of wastewater treatment sludge (WTS) as the neutralization agent will avoid disposing of WTS in Slovak landfills It is estimated that the minimization of this waste material will save Petrochema 5700000 Slovak Korunas (US$185000) annually in disposal and transportation costs

In the initial seven trials we tested only mixtures containing old Goudron sludge In the future Petrochema should test neutralized mixtures of fresh Goudron sludge for S2 emissions Fresh Goudron sludge which is more acidic than old Goudron sludge will require a greater degree of neutralization prior to incineration Based upon future test results for fresh Goudron sludge and wastewater treatment sludge Petrochema may need to reconsider testing lime [Ca(OH)21 as the neutralizing agent The use of lime presents many special challenges

16

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 26: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

WHITE OIL FEEDSTOCK NaOH

I~~ ~0 lsUPHONOI-CI [i SULPHUR -- SO3

PRODUCTION S REDUCTIONI SEDIMENTATION NEUTRAUZATION SEDIMENTATION

WITH SO3

i

WASTE ACID PITCHES (GOUDRONSLUDGE)

PETROLEUM SULPHONATE BY-PRODUCT

NaOH INTERMEDIATE OIL

H2SO4 SULPHONATION

(OLEUM) WITH OLEUM

SEDIMENTATION NEUTRALIZATION SEDIMENTATION

GOUDRON SLUDGE

PETROLEUM SULPHONATEBY-PRODUCTn

ADSORPTION CLAY

FILTRATIONWHITE OIL PRODUCTION

Q WASTE CLAY

THREE STAGES OF SO3 TREATMENT IN SERIES

0J

Figure 1 Process Flow Digram - White Oil Production

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 27: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

--

LIQUID -1[ W0

SULPHUR

V205 PACKED TTOWER 1 V-O

AIR V205

O2+N2 -TO ATMOSPHERE

0 S03 T GAS

HET

EXCHANGER

FRESH NaOHSCRUBBING SOLUTION

COLUMN

TO amp 4HPHIOCESS

S03 SPENT NaOH

THREE STAGES OF S03 SOLUTION S03 TREATMENT

PRELIMINARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS

S02 MEASUREMENTS C-4 9 pH MEASUREMENTS0U 02 MEASUREMENTS

Ln

9

Figure 2 Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

w

4QL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 28: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

00

63C 1S

6JS

OIL

40 AleiR

CC

I I CAW4AIj C

(ofr~

1A 04

ul

-

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 29: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

S0 2

Out

let C

once

ntra

tion

ppm

v

0 C

) 0

0 0C

0

0

-_

0

o3

P

CA

0

1-

i

(a

m

0

oo

c

Cr )U

9

0

-

3l

ro

$f

l i

oco(D

(D

9]V

C

U-

C

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 30: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

II4~eINCD FrOp 4

V ST() 00 KO rf

pos EM TO C-4 mwe

II

M0 0

MMP 9 e tL W O ~ t~ e g0 F Oi

shy

-o S

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 31: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

____ _ ___

ArVE LW

70 voDLI

ca1

00M

12 0

tP-~ Mru MSSALN PLffCS OPaOI

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 32: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL

PETROCIIEMA - GUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION INCNERATOR TRIAL BURN

Neutraliz~cia gudr6novch sm6I Sp fowaci proces v peci

TEST PLAN DATA COLLECTION FORM

FormulAr pre zozbieranie hodn6t testovanla

GENERAL INFORMATION

Vieobecn6 InformAcie

TRIAL No

63sl pokusu

DATE

Dtun TEST START TME

das za~iatku pokusu

TEST END TIME

6w ukor-tenia poku3u

TEST DURATION

Trvanie pokusu

INCINERATOR TYPE

Typ spafovne

OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION

InA vieobecn6 informAcle

BURN CONDmONS

Podmienky spatovania

SLUDGE FEED RATE

Nistrek sm6

INCINERATOR TEMPERATURE

Teplota spaiovania

INCIN EXCESS 0

Prebytok 02 na spal

FLUE GAS FLOW RATE

Prietok dymu

S02 STACK EMISSIONS

Emisie S02 do korrina

OTHER

In

OTHER KEY TEST MEASURMENTSTEST

GUDRON SLUDGE QUALITYBURN MIXTURE

Kvairta gudr6novch sm6Vpolovacia zmIes

GUDRON SLUDGE COMPOSITION ()

(PRIOR TO NEUTRALIZATION)

Zloienao gudr6nov~ch smw6l ()

(Pred neutralizAciou)

GUDRON TYPE

Drub gudr6nu

OIL

Olej

WATER

Voda

SULPHONIC ACID

SL okyeUna

SULFURIC ACID

Kysolina sirovA

SPENT CLAY Pouit hinka

(IF MEASURED) (Ak je namieAinh)

SUL7UR CONTENT

Obs -h sry

SLUDGE MIXTURE VOLUME (OR MASS)

Mnolstvo zmesi gucir6nov

GUDRON SLUDGE

Ouc6nov6 smoty

WWT SLUDGE

Kaly z 0V

SPENT CLAY

PouitA hrl-a

LIME

Ca(OH)2

TOTAL VOLUME (OR MASS) OF SLUDGE

MIXTURE INCINERATED Calkov6 spzgen6 hmotov6 rnrmistvo 2mnesi amSA

rO0HIER

RUN COMMENTS

IrM k6ov6 merania testuPoznbrmky k priebehu testu

FIGURE 7

Test Total Pau By Wt Waste Characteristics Waste Sulfur Content Kg Total S

No Feed Kg Composition in Waste Water Acid No H2S04 Oil Total S By Acid No(a) By Sulfur in Waste Kg

1 4000 WAE 1000 68 1325 194 2120 776 776

2 4000 SD WTS

500 500

52 64

534 375

204 226 058

854 60

452 116 568

3 3600 SD WTS

WAE (b)

375 375

250

52 64

68

534 375

1325

204 226 058

194

288 20

477

305 78

175 558

4 3600 SD WTS

CS

333 333

333

52 64

15

534 375

204

38

226 058

067

256 18

271_ 70

80 421

5 1500 SEW 1000 61 22 042 944 63 63

6 3350 SEW CS

220 780

61 15

22 38

042 067

464 31 175 206

7 1200 SD 1000 52 534 2041 226 183 271 271

a) Assuming zil sulfur in wase is sulfuric acid

b) WAE not mixed with DSWTS fed separately into incinerator

WAE - Water acid emulsion from dump SD -Sludge from dump WTS -Wastewater Treatment Sludge S - Sludge with no additional description CS - Oil contaminated soil SEW - Sewage with no additional description

Table 2 S02 EMISSION DATA SUMMARY (a)

lseat No 1 TestNo 2 Test No 3 Test No4 S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone Ppm S02 Cone ppm S02 Cone ppm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected 93 305 86 10 3 79 1 209 609

0935 240 699 0905 505 1020 1205 1694 3812 1035 420 1223 0940 191 556 0910 626 1265 1210 2043 4597 1040 258 751 0945 31 90 0915 558 1127 1215 1384 3114 1045 475 1383 0950 28 82 0920 470 950 1220 2249 5060 1050 190 553 0955 25 73 0925 632 1277 1225 1648 3708 1055 470 139 1000 800 2329 0930 774 1564 1230 1138 2561 1100 174 507 1005 610 1776 0935 610 1232 1235 3020 6795 1105 353 1028 1010 520 1514 0940 685 1384 1240 1784 4014 1110 370 1077 1015 275 801 0945 471 952 1245 1381 3107 1115 201 585 1020 194 565 0950 678 1370 1250 1241 2792 1120 390 1136 1025 229 667 0955 449 907 1255 1429 3215 1125 390 1136 1030 628 1829 1000 723 1461 1300 685 1541 1130 479 1395 1035 527 1535 1005 405 818 1305 1214 2732 1135 304 885 1040 355 1034 1010 456 921 1310 842 1895 1140 378 1101 1045 346 1007 1015 471 952 1315 1443 3247 1145 516 1502 1050 421 1226 1020 445 899 1320 1003 2257 1150 459 1337 1055 377 1098 1025 618 1249 1325 1357 3053 1155 381 1109 1100 52 151 1030 608 1228 1330 988 2223 1200 454 1322 1105 673 1960 1035 689 1392 1110 45 131 1040 436 881 1115 727 2117 1045 520 1051 1120 719 2094 1050 382 772 1125 649 1890 1055 377 762 1130 415 1208 1100 463 935

Imax 375 1093

L0329 55 1101 I7415 -0069[5652

-3

RMan 2 3I3 1 76 2 1II 68 J 1 4 1 7 I0

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 inthe emission gasesS02 concentrations are not

corrected to standard temperature and pressure

(2

Test No5 I Iest No6 Test No7 S02 Cone pm S02 Cone S02 Cone pm

Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected Time Measured Corrected U 97 2 2 19 12A0 61142

0905 63 13G 1105 100 206 1245 765 1429 0910 5 10 1110 108 223 1250 1186 2215 0915 70 144 1115 195 402 1255 1506 2813 0920 235 485 1120 352 726 1300 1578 2948 0925 278 573 1125 437 901 1305 1704 3183 0930 139 281 1130 203 419 1310 1095 2045 0935 126 260 1135 213 439 1315 809 1511 0940 121 250 1140 279 575 1320 1614 3015 0945 179 369 1145 178 367 1325 735 1373 0950 137 283 1150 439 905 1330 2311 4317 0955 135 278 1155 529 1091 1335 1495 2793

1000 133 274 1200 410 846 1340 806 1506 1205 240 495 1 1210 286 590 1215 240 495 1220 380 784 1225 3071 633 1230 4701 969

278I 7I 529 01l 3141 ____ 285 107jf___2 1____19 ___73_

a) Corrected S02 concentrations calculated at 11 percent 02 in the emission gases S02 concentrations are not corrected to standard temperature and pressure

Table 3 PETROCHEMA INCINERATION TEST DATA SUMMARY

No

2

3

T Date 31394

3994

31794

Test Data Start Hr ~ 3

M 900

1200

End Hr T~~

100

1330

Run Hrs

2

15

Waste eed Data a

Type Wt Kg WAE 00

SDWIS 4000

SDWTSWAE 3600

S Kg(c) 716

568

558

Incinerator Conditions ---

Temp C Excess 02 bW 17-5

700-900 16

700-900 165

IFlow m3br

99136

99136

Sulfur E

SO p

545

1556

Kg (d) L673

51

148

Emitted ___

89

266

4

5

6

7

32594

33094

41594

42294

1

1030

900

1100

1240

1200

1000

1230

1340

15

1

15

1

SDWTSCS

SEW

SEWCS

SD

3600

1500

3350

1200

421

63

206

271

650-850

650-850

650-850

700-850

175

161

161

156

99136

99136

85472

85472

362

132

286

1259

1

18

0

9

67

43

0

42

246

a) WAE - Water Acid Emulsion SD - Sludge from Dump WTS - Wastewater Treatment Sludge CS - Oil Contaminated Soil SEW - Sewage no additional description

b) Determined from S02 CEM measurements

c) Based on total sulfur analysis of waste feed

d) Corrected for sulfur contribution from incinerator fuel fuel sulfur 2 by weight

RADIANCON V 420llAT ION

ATTACHMENT A

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT PHOTOGRAPHS

3~4

RADIAN CORPORATION

MODEL 890 S02 ANALYZERROSEMOUNT ANALYTICAL

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SAMPLE CONDITIONING SYSTEM

RADIAN CO RPORATION

UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS SO 2 SAMPLE COLLECTION PROBE

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT B

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA

DECEMBER 1993 VISIT

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema- Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION V~eobeon6 Informicle ST DATE

Ditum skigky __ _ - _ _ __--_ _ __ ___ _

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguritcia pridky ~~~)v UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nistrek kvapalnllsfry OIL FEED RAT l-92

Nistrek oteja 90 y4-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER Nistrek vody do praky (12 3 ivtt

R FLOW RAT )

N~strek vzduchu S02IN ATTEST END w

1 iiV

(

stup S02 pd ukonenl sktky I ( f-77vi

TRIAL No 1 2 3 4 5 Cpokusu pif GOM to3 0t-O ---CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour NAstrek NaOH Vhod O pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET pH NaOH na v~stupe 0 g Le So2O UT( ) 012s b o 1-7 1 IS02 na v~stupo I__ _ ~ I___ 4

NOTM VJAtr -t-c-Tw -Pon~ka Av-r-tC Fr-A r6 TO FV 15 Tb ttctieVWF

TEST COMMENTSZl(V5-4 0 o-F Lqt4-n v

PL -7 ~-39 4q c9 I_Pripomlenkyktestu JA5 -39)6 e1 tT 4-5-5-i plusmnt)-O KV

F A-6-V5

1i1-IAL 1k A A I L-s

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informicle EST DATE

DAtum sk~jgky tZ5 1L SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurtca pritky z va 0 UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrok kvapalnej siry 2 - 7 L[ 1 OIL FEED RATE N~strekoleja

7 -WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER NMstrek vody do pradky 7( rt4

N~te k vzduch uAIR FLOW RATE 0 0 V _

SON AT TEST END stup S02 pd ukon6eni sk69ky

T No _ 1 2 3 4 5 Cpousu

CAUSTIC FEED RATE IhourN trek NaOH Ihod 9 0 -

pHTOFICAUSTIC OU7L7T

NOTE

Pozngrmka

(9TEST COMMENTIS Prpomlenky ktestu

)) h VMJUY 7t~T - vi Cf -- Lj i~Uf~ --- 7 11- uP Ot )i ( i-- U gt Tb - 9 7(y7 -0-p m V - -t I

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizcia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 Informcie

TEST DATE

Ditum skOgky

SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfigurdcia prriky E 5C-Cf-t) C N Lf-4Or LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE

Nitstrek kvapalnej sfry L j vi -OIL FEED RATE

NWstrek oleja i Ez-)lL - 1 3-WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER

Nistrek vody do pradky X INI

AIR FLOW RATEkA4 N o vzduchu S02AN ATTEST END 1 -71-78

I_7Vstup S02 pri ukonenf skl6ky ______________

TRIAL No 1 34 5 C pokusu IIf-ki1 CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

N6strek NaOH Ihod I pH OF CAUSTIC OUTLET

pH NaOH na vkstupe _ -- _ _

Sovu~ rpo s vp 3)-s -z_a visuperr4v

NOTE Aof fP 2 1 ~ ~X3E Poznimka C 4 ~ V ~1c~ ~ n ArjT

v1--EaFgb r-A -- TEST COMMENT- -

Pripomienky k testu

-IID 4- ~t 5 ~A74 IA ffT (ti shy

- Tho fw vO r-I~yr t r r

- - r- - A- j - 0- 1 T-1

___

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oleje Optimalizicia I6hovej praaky plynov

DATA SHEET Ust pre zber d~t

GENERAL INFORMATION Vgeobecn6 informcle EST DATE

DtmskLgky 12393 SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION Konfiguricia pr 6ky VJ- -f -- (2 N

UQUID SULFUR FEED RATE Nistrek kvapalnej siry ((9 0 qj--OIL FEED RATE

Nastrek oleja WATER FLOW RATE TOSRUBBER 2( 4 jN~istrek vody do pradky I ~ M 1AIR FLOW RATE

Nistrek vzduchu S 2IN AT TEST ENDVstup S02 prf ukon~en sk6ky - -7C3

7

No 2 3 4 5(5pokusuo

CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour amp NtstrekNaOH Ihod 0 (2

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na vystupe 7 7 jSO2OUl-mv(5 1S2na v9stupe

6

NOTE

PoznAmka

TEST COMMENTS

Pripomienky k testu

IN Gt I t -N- dr-Ii-T15---shy_ -

t~~hI A) 6i f-

A-T-7 P N47)- I L -I IJ-VT A-- c IL-CL H Fshy1-0I _ _ __-_ - 0DI_I Fi -- 1 - w 4 S r--e shy

7) e)shy

______

PETROCHEMA - WHITE OIL PLANT CAUSTIC SCRUBBER OPTIMIZATION Petrochema - Biele oieje Optimalizicia I6hovej pradky plynov

DATA SHEET

List pro zber dit

GENERAL INFORMATION Veobecn6 Informicle

TEST DATE

Ditum sktgky 2____________________________SCRUBBER CONFIGURATION

Konfiguricia pr 6ky U F GM 0 LIQUID SULFUR FEED RATE N6strek kvapalnej siry OIL FEED RATE

N6istrekoleja 1LV0 Aj

WATER FLOW RATE TO SCRUBBER N6trek vody do praky I L IN

AIR FLOW RATE

N~strek vzduchu UfS f) S02IN AT TEST END pfvv (m) Vstup S02 pd ukonenf dkiky 1 ppv

TRIAL No 5 1 2 3 4 56 pokusu I-NooO CAUSTIC FEED RATE Ihour

Nistrek NaOH Ihod ____

pH OF CAUS11C OUTLET pH NaOH na stupe -7 ( -7 SO2OUT

NOTE

Poznimka

TEST COMMENTvP

Pripomienky k testu

S T- SAHRL-E

Project NoEBook NaL CRAIDIA -OEPONKATIO

nPage No_- r I P I r i l

I - __ - -T - - T T--T __-__- -ii _____________ __ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ t t

-_ls i tTW7-A - - i ----__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ shy

_ _ _ _ _ _ -T

-(-$7-0rdeg014T~- a6lt0 i I F -i ----Tshy-t--v

I ___ __-j kUr-pd =- tZ --iool vshy

__ _ _ _ _ _I shy_ _ - ---- -t-I- r - --------shy

$ I I

- Ishy___ ___-- -- r- ililil

I = I-~o

I I____7_______________I i~ 1oQl-9

- VAA

00 -SOI I I - I

e) N11

~V1 ii9pr S F

ifx tTfA -100 O i iim IC uOrR Lj III

bull T -- HPI ovL r i

I I i [I It

__-_ I I _

Egt- hr To Page N

tnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date -1--z7- 114elrde b r -- I f 1 C-E o

-- ---

____

Project N RADIAN Book NPL CORPORATION

geN - - - I

I I 1

V- -gt __ i IvLrLi - -shy- J t +

i--V-i-+-1---I - I I

- -- l i I I T IT- IJt i

-I I I I -+I - -------- - - N I L 1 I I

- bull-l I - I I I d oI L Ftt54- 6 - f

5C is r17 __-Kt r I- - - ~ I I i i i hI _ _

L i U +-- i7 -P - + 1-I I _____ _ _- _ _I+-+i -+ wI I I - I +i

I I I

Ii -JO -age

1 - I No7

__ II+ 1 + __________-I + i

ta

Dat Ij I

amp Understood by me DaeInvented by Dn

____

A-Book882Project N RADIA

ITLE BORPORAT

mr -

From Page Ni -

II __shy

_iI _

1 I1 - 7

7_-1+_ I -

71 I

I -- i---shy4 0

1I A

I[

T _

AI

-t

III

_ - - I - - _-------4-44 E -

-- T -2shy

To PaE

Witnessed amp Understood by me Date Invented by Date

Recorded by

7

_ _

-4--Lgt Project NO1 RADIAN 61

CORPORATIONE3 -4-- ) cN0UL3I)N1

V shy -- 7 -

____r~--- t- o - [4 Lr- _ shy

WFZsi

I

o II

I

I I

bullshy

_

I

-7 - --- -_

II R

___ _21 7-_ -

dU amp rt oo by meaeI v nt d b I I_ _ - - a

I I

d amp Understood by me Date Ilnvented by

Dae

I To Page No_

IRecorded by

CORP OR ATION CALCULATION SHEET 1 CAM NNp

SIGNATURE DATE CHECKED DATEik -L1

PROJEC I 0 FT- t I -2An V - ampH NO P C- LAJOBL SUBJEA c -_ ET OF -L SHEE

IN Lf- r-D t) 2 ---_--_-___ CONUERE OUT L-71 iJTl-S~i- iQ 1-l UTLS__

P-IOUIL-r - I t--r i -e-shy7 4+4+0 3-70

o -o c +5 io 2--o __o

shy

( _ -H _ _ _o _

-7 Z0 Zo

00T17

Io- -I - S

f~ 8o-o 3qq 3oc -7

- - - ____ o ____ Ss 9 N 3 v0

- - -

Teplota v C Konverzn veza o prosadenie Tlak

Shla II IV t

01 T 01 0 c i 1 10l -go 1O- 40_ o

-3

qo _ - --- -o - shy

4z ---- L -shy

-43 S-9 - - -- 4 j~~f - 3o _ L - shy

- - 9- 1 0

42 5o - _6

Qamp~-- - I-- shy

o_~~~~4 shy

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT C

WHITE OIL PLANT OPTIMIZATION SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

L4

CALCULATION SHEETRPPION

CAMO NOZ

4TU REkk~~~I DATE4LL~ CHECKED________ DATE________

ECT~ tP-I MIF-B Vn )thWTt PL- A NT JOBNOP F-pc- J-A-s 1-eHIN1t-tPM

EC F- -t CSHEET OF SHEETS

SO 1_ A-- Ct-9 L4CRup

v s F S- LP-~t t -cP-nr ((xU(

Z-) s P IPF-206 -AT o

41 -TE- U N K56T-VA tp

INLTFD9__-1_ ~vSo 3-5( p

ir F-u shy

______

RADIAN CORORAION CALCULATION SHEET

cALco -

SIGNATURE__ DATEDE -7 fCHECKEDI Z7-2__ DAE_

0PROJECTrPT11 ( F- TIM I-r J - P JOB NOP---7c-- - 4 --

m V______r _ SHEET- -- SHEETS

c-T ( 1 NO t

CA-T-A Vti77 CV V-r-rcshy

A14-~tr L~ rA--7

J~j t7-W shy

RADInAN CA-L--u 117- Dt4 (Ci I -

uouio S021~hr ii Co f4L) 16-1-T7L

N0 Alt-I VoITdeg-I

OSULPHUR V205

PACKED V0 __

SVL F TOWER T

AIR VO207 el- 02+N2 ATMOSPHEREQ

Gs T ID fA

HEAT EXCHANGER

S0 FRESHSNaOH

SCRUBBING SOLUTION 02 COLUMN

TO

S03 SPENT S03TREATMENT $THREE STAGES OF T Z NLTOSLTO

PREUMLI NARY TEST MEASUREMENTS FROM

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS PROCESS1()So2MEASUREMENTS

9 8 pH MEASUREMENTS Y- 0 cv)

S02 MEASUREMENTS

9

004 Figure Process Flow Diagram - S03 Production in the White Oil Plant

RADIAN COI PO t ATI ON CALCULATION SHEET

cALC NO _---

SIGNATURE Y1ATE DAT i CHECKED_ _ DATE -

PROJECTk13 PI vi A Ai1CL~k -~AON1$ ~~~-4~~sshy

SUBJECT r- SHEET t OF SHEETS

cto r V

( Pdi~p tJ( LO-c

A-

VALvr

7i - o -7 shy

h (-shy

-b--C ~~~~~~~t -v 4c--------------gt -shy

] gt 0 f l- - fi ~ 7L r 1()R-00

DE0RA T1N CALCULATION SHEET ACNO

TURF DATE CHECKED______ DATE______

ECS0 opri -rPM~ - W3HO-DtL pF-A~WON~O~T-~~1 HIMtirl

ECT 50Sar amp67- F V f SHEET_________ET

viJITW hIPDjfTIN of mviWamp41ftq-T

6Ai-A-I-iq Ir e 9f1r2t-p Tu

old_ vrrElz T1- 5A-A-- 3t4t1

0 5 ~koCielaw o _rampc -c 500

PW - -

A)r 7( 0 Sft 6eIfv jo T

)( OO lA d O rFic~~~~I~~c7~

~-A-v

V) T1 A-Dp u v (4OF NW CAr k -iis-r

RADIANCACLTOSHE CORPORATIONCA

C L OT SH EC MN

SIGNATURE-W4A 4 DATE 1(2-0 I94 CHECKED DATE________

PROJECT 503 Qpnf-tIA-7761J - (N~jM-(L~ - W JOB NO--ot WAs7v- immimit

SUBJECT CA--7- 4ampP JVF fV l~ SHEET- v Of shy7 SHEETS6rlv WTj TI-5i fpnvii oF m6+- cqfI T O--3fSHE

T- eltI up 5V1-f-uV r sAV (NG-5 fv IT-7v ampiz- N3A)

OAv~l rL e- sAvtC-7 -

N~A 1A- poundc-V[-p Ft7LKI~ 4-14r

T- I - 2shy

7rrA4Y1 04 S

Tv c 0P- e

~ ~ ~ ~ 7---o S~-~-WpV pA~U1~QLICAN Z

DIAN CALCULATION SHEETt

CAMC NO

NTUREV fA DATEU-I 9 94 CHECKED DATE

ECT 5o rD MV- (tkTh 1L- AFr1 JOB NO l i I v

ECCV- 1w DSHEET OF SHEETS

okuVY L 00mT14Ir I F-Et4~w ourTM

o ~~~ 1-P og~ ~ tA41

__

RADIAN CORPORATION CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE_____________________ DATE- 19 94 CHECKED_______ DATE_______

PROJECT40 OPrT1 -rI47 - J1OB nO________________O

S JEC 4-Or-T Je11tri~r k - -yF- -VIA)5 SHEET_________v 9 F 1-1iV 6T- fru ___ SHEETS

A-- 7o14 FFI E l-e-r

A-5 V5i~( 6 TW--

tiv

-l012 I4cent ov tp -PL-V 0 t0Io

S-YfNshy-0 ~~IC- 2 ~5trZ12

24~~ 9-1+ Y kf ZSIfDSLOYAK4~~~E I ow6 A ---Iv

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT D

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

TEST DATA MARCH 1994

-TATNY PODNIK euBovA 976 97 NVMCKA

NSKA REPUB3LKATe0867926182 0867926142 Fax086792286 086792208

TELEFAX~

E1 O POOET STRANNO OF PAGESI7 001 310 640 8940

FA X

D K(O HOFR O M g -i Technical nd- p jq-ire to g V Otre shy

-ECOBJECT

ear Sir

I send you results of measurements SO2 - emissions from the incinerator

I send you choice of seven the most ob~iect1vA mnii~m~ntc because o technical reasons - like there was downtime nf incineshyrators sludge from dump could not be exploited during winter mnhh 8 ml W4^ 0 _r d Ccmbultug uuu1Puutd ut waotoo wa= dcmana3ng u time

Text data

Trial No 1 Date 3rd of Match 1994 Test start fime 930

Test end time 1130 Test duration 2 hours Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II Incinorator temperature 600 - 700 0C

Incinerator excess 02 175

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3hour

I 1

-2shy

8urnt waste water acid emulsion from dumps

Quality-burnt waste water 68

acid number 1325 mg NaOHg

sulphur 194

Total burnt mass 4 000 kg

5o2 stack emissions

time 930 935 940 945 950 955 ppm 305 240 191 31 28

time 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025

pM 800 610 620 275 194 229

time 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1055

ppm 628 527 355 346 421 377

time 1100 1105 1110 1115 1120 1125

Ppm 52 673 45 727 719 649

time 1130

ppm 415

Trial No 2

Date 9th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1100

Test duration 2 hours

Incingrator typo tnninArntnr nf 1nonrniis wAstv TT

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0 C

Incinerator excess 02 1 3

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m3 hour

Burnt waste sludge from dump waste from wastewater treatment

plant = I 1

25

-3-

Quality burnt waste water 50 sulphur 08 N

acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric acid 019

Total burnt mosa 6 000 kg

502 stack emissions

time 900 905 910 915 920

ppm 574 505 626 558 470

time 925 930 935 940 945

ppm 632 774 610 685 471

time 950 955 1000 tO05 1010

ppm 678 449 723 405 456

time 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035

ppm 471 445 61B 608 609

time 1040 1045 1050 1055 1100

ppm 436 520 382 377 463

Trial No 3 Uate 17th o March 1994

Test start time 1200

Test end time 1330

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type inclnaraLor or dangeru~mi vastus 1I

Incinerator temperature 700 - 900 0C

Incinerator excess 02 165

Flue gas flow rate 99 136 m hour

6urnt waste water acid emulsion from dump and

sludgc from dump and WWT sludge

- 06 09 09

(

-4shy

quliy burn wooto cludga

and WWT sludge water 50 so

sulphur 08 acid number 16 mgNaOHg

sulphuric Acid 019 water acid emuluuni wut v 68

sulphur 194 acid number 1325 mgNaOHg

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

qn Z RRnk riqqinnR

time 1200 1205 1210 1215 1220 ppm 3020 1694 2043 1394 2249

time 1225 1230 1235 1240 1245 ppm 1648 1138 3020 1784 1381

timp igsn 19 q 1lfnn 1nq 1lin

ppm 1241 1429 685 1214 842

timc 1315 1320 1325 1330 ppm 1443 1003 1357 98

Trial No 4 Date 25th of March 1994 Tnst stnrt timn 1030 Test end time 1200 Test duration 150 hours IIiu~iiILuL Lypu liuJiitL=duLui uJ ddiiWvI uum wut3Lub II Incinerator temperature 650 - 050 degC

Incin excess 02 175 Fluo 92c flow rzia 99 139 m 3hour

Burnt waste sludge and WWT sludge ai10 contamishynatea carth Dy oi I I

- 5 -

Quality burnt WQooc wetcr 39

acid number 0

ash 3182

Total burnt mass 3 600 kg

502 stack emissions

time 100 105 1040 1045 lu)U

ppm 209 420 258 475 190

time 1055 1100 1105 1110 1115

ppm 470 174 353 370 201

time 1120 1125 1130 1135 1140

ppm 390 390 479 304 378

time 1145 1150 1155 1200

ppm 516 459 381 454

Trial No 5

Date 30th of March 1994

Test start time 900

Test end time 1000

Tost duration I hour

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes II

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

clUe gas xiow raie vy i)b m inour

Burnt waste sewage

Quality burnt wasLe waLuj 61 5o

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOHg

Total burnt mass 1 500 kg

SOl stack emissions

-6 shy

time 900 905 910 915 920 ppm 97 63 5 70 235

time 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045

ppM 278 139 126 121 179

time 1050 1055 1100

ppm 137 135 133

Trial No 6

Oate 15th of April 1994 Toc stqrt time 1100 Test end time 1230

Test duration 15 hours

Incinerator type incinerator of dangerous wastes I

Incinerator temperature 650 - 850 degC

Incin excess 02 161

Flue gas flow rate 85 472 nhour Burnt waste sewage and contaminated carth by

oil 05 175 Quality burnt waste sewage - water 61

sulphur 042

acid number 22 mgKOH

earth - water 15

sulphur 067

oil 38

Total burnt mass 3 350 kg

502 stack emissions

time 1100 1105 11in 115 L+20

ppm 72 100 108 195 352

time 1125 1130 1135 1140 1145

ppm 437 203 213 279 178

time 1150 1155

Imr 3 9

time 1215 1220

ppm 240 300

Trial No

Date

Test start time

Test end time

Toot duration

Incinerator type

Incinerator temperature

Incin excess 02

Flue gas flow rate

Burnt waste

Quality burnt waste

Total burnt mudf

s02 stack emissions

timC4 1240 1245

ppm 761 705

time 1U 11U

ppm 1704 1095

time 1330 1335

ppm 2311 1495

If you have same guestions

Gco tcgnrdo

-7 shy

1200 1205 1210

410 240 28d

1225 1230

307 470

7

22nd of Anril 1994

1240

1340

1 hour

incinerator of dangerous wastes I

700 - 850 0 C

156

85 472 m3 hour

111oR frnm r1timn water 52

sulphur 226

sulphuric acid 204

acid number 534 mgKOHg

1 200 kg

1250 1255 1300

1186 1506 1575

l5ib 1320 1325

809 1614 735

1340

806

I l like -to answer on it

MEMORANDUM

TO Mr Jozef Surab Technical and Production Director

FROM Mr Edward Andrechak

COPY Bhushan Lodh Mrs Olga Hauskrechtova

DATE May 9 1994

SUBJECT Questions Regarding Incinerator Test Data

Thank you for sending the incinerator test data last week We have reviewed the test

results and have the following questions about the incinerator test data

General

1 What is the difference in Incinerator Type Are Incinerator of dangerous wastes II

and Incinerator of dangerous wastes I different incinerators

2 Is it correct that the Acid Number was determined with NaOH in some tests and KOH in other tests

3 What was the fuel for the incinerator or incinerators What was the fuel feed rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used in the incinerator or incinerators

4 For each test identify whether test was run with neutralized waste or unneutralized waste

5 What are the gas temperatures and humidity conditions for the flue gas flow rates given for each test

6 Are the test durations given in the test data equal to the time required for the total mass of waste to be burned in the incinerator

Test No 2

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 2 for the combined sludge from dump and waste from the wastewater treatment plant A separate waste analysis is given for the water acid emulsion from the dump

2 If the first set of waste analysis data is not for the combined wastes please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 Is the waste from wastewater treatment plant used in Test No 2 the same material as the wastewater treatment sludge used in Tests Nos3 and 4

4 Is there any explanation for the large variation in SO2 stack emissions during this test The values range from 25 to 800 ppm SO 2

Test No 3

1 Is the first set of waste analysis data for Test No 3 for the combined sludge from dump and the wastewater treatment sludge

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

Test No 4

1 Is the waste analysis data for the combined sludge wastewater treatment plant sludge and the contaminated earth

2 If the analysis is not for the combined waste please provide the analysis for each type waste if available

3 What is the percent () sulfur in the wastes burned in this test

4 Is the sludge used in this Test the same material as the sludge from the dump used in Tests Nos 2 3 and 7

Test No 5

1 The Test Start Time is shown as 0900 hr the Test End Time is shown as 1000 hrs and the Test Duration is shown at 1 hour However S02 data is given for the time period 0900 to 1100 hours Is there an explanation for the difference in these time periods

2 Is there any explanation for the low S02 stack emission during the first 20 minutes of this test

tTATNY PODNIK DUBOVA 976 97 NEMECKA

ENSKA REPUBLIKA Te10867926182 0867926142 Fax08679 2 2 8 6 086792208

TELEFAX Andrechak 19 5 1994

KOM TOd 4

O F AG I 001 310 640 8940AX

Ing Mdria Babiakovd OD KOHOFROM

VECOBJECT

I)ear Sir

I artswer on your questions from your fax 9th of May 1994-

General

1 Tie difference in Incinerators is only in capacityof burnt

ca S o I a

capacity of Incinerator I - 2200 kghour capacity of ncinerator II - 3 700 kghour

Z AulU ilumui r my bc datermincd by loON ard OH -ccording to

Czechoslovak norm It is dependent-on laboratorywich method

is use

3 The bunkec oil was used as fuel

4 Sludge was neutralized by only WJT and mixed wastes was burnt

in test No 2 3 4

5 Tem eratures and humidity conditions fur the gas wasnt measushy

red we havent instrumet for their mneasurinoi

-2shy

6 Ushered total mass of burnt wastes ace always amounts of burnt

wastes for ustered time

test No 1 - 4 000 kglt2 houcs test No 2 - 4 000 kg 2 hours

tcst No 3 - 3 600 kg 15 hours

test No 4 - 3 600 kg 15 hours test No 5 - 1 500 kg I hour

test No 6 - 3 350 kg 15 hours

test No 7 - 1 200 kg 1 hours

Test No 2

1 Ustered analysis data is date for mixed wastes (sludge from

dump and WWT)

2 Analysis date for sludge

water -

sulphur

sulphuric acid - 204 acid number - 534 mgKOHlg

analysiG datg for UWT vjztar (

sulphur 9I58

acid number 375 mgKOHg

3 YeS it is

4 We suppose that many various date in SO2 stack emissions is

due to diskontinual dosage wastes (test No 1)

rFont No 3

1 Ustered analvsis data is date for mixed wastes (sludoe fromdump and UIWT) Water acid ehiiiUiun is dosed to ibcinenitoc

by separate burner

-3shy2 Analysis date for w~ter ac uslo

water shy 68 sulphur - 194 r cid number - 1325 mnNnlIin

cont minated earth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated eRrth water shy 15

sulphur - 067 oil - 38

3 Percent ( ) sulphur in the burnt wastes is total sulphur detershyminated by Xrays with Oohrmann system 702

4 Yes it is

Fes L No 5

1 There is mistahe Time of test is 900 905 920 925 9130 i 000

We sclnnnp lhni -jrio~o do-to feir 002 0LLK utii sion i cleshy

o n e n nn -3 1- 4

2 Analysis date for water acid cmusliOnll

wate - 60

sulphur - 194

acid number - 1325 mgNaOHg

Test No 4

1 Ushered analysis date is date for mixed wastes (sludge WWT

contaminatcd carth by oil)

2 Analysis date for contaminated earth

water - 15

sulphur - 067

uil - 38 $i

total sulphur detershy3 Percent () sulphur in the burnt wastes is

minated by Xrays with Dohrmann systom 702

4 yes it is

Test No 5 I IOULVU AU III AU I I I U A A IIIUV V A

930 1000

We suppose that various date for 502 stack emission is deshy2

pendent on immediate quality emulsion from dump

Best regards

RADIAN CORPORATION

ATTACHMENT E

GOUDRON SLUDGE NEUTRALIZATION AND INCINERATION

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

p0DIAN1 CALCULATION SHEET CALC NO_______

TURELii( Jamp) DATE 8i CHECKEDL1A -_- DATElhi

-0~Lf~vOFUE ~ C~SHE~ OF -SHEETS

OSLF -FA

4-SSMP770JS2 F-FAcmrc - r90 DscFiH3o(T -gio cj fEA5i46 VALC 6 6_10-5+)b

JES A7776hJ OF7 Fui-z_ USA)6 c-~

T91-L~P~k GS TLDGAS 02O - Ik ~FI

(FOE-L i-ThLUeti-i eA-SES)

9(qgo D6tFsH Btu

rFL CCNXSLIAP7OA3 29 X1010 134of4- i-~ twn-T s5~-4xi54 -Bjih

SfJMGA4OLUPFi420MF0 Z (15-64 Ib-ciz) (002) 3IJJ29 lbIw

20941 j3-2XD5-

(M~jG-A-5 F -LOO 2eVPq 1rocEL ~6 (7 X0) ~2(ODc

H~kw i folik 3ZK0-5CFfa) 41e(N v q90 DgcFmm-W~h)

~ - 122k6shy

RADIANCCIONCALCULATIONPA OP SHEET

NO H-0 C -- 191CALJESIGNAURE-

S------E~ DAT EfiJ-L-- CHECKEDJ __ _-D4 2( PROJECT VP L )V66 -- )Ti 0 rJO r cT-1-M A -rnF

SUBJEGT23 ramp cle Y iWlt-L C 6 SHEET OF SHEE

CAS 0Co amp( -- L(-C WO C) I~ 4ba~-)Gto

A~cItP77CI~ 4 L7 10 V0ULjL4b 1

A 12Me4 TO6 c 11761 F400) (773 )-ACk-(A

3 7 c7 xco-

LA2~ A8 5~ P77cS-S -M

r~CO1)- FLZ CCPo) G 47 -)0SS- 2shy

4YI0CA17rZP4tO2- T 043

FLO( c) iampL~ PLOCO A- CACXcCbI~J CS(LIE C(W4-r61U

PWl SO Lc racIc-shy

in R f-f

DEAN CALCULATION SHEET ECAMC NO____ 3_

TURE DATE [CHECKED DATE_ Z4 ECT _ ___OB J__ NO __ __ __ __ _

-ri-n NE SLSS OF4 E)1TA

2Co6Xo4 I0)A-

H-M(k) =32

o = o s 3

RADIANk HE cc o RA I CALCULATION SHEET

SIGNATURE- E-FiANZ-E L DATE7JZA CHECKED - DATE-

ULU Lt -A7 JOBNO ff J+ T-PROJECT bDP-DN 6TNEU i-V ItN -Tr e -1A

SUBJECT L-A NDFILL )-lPr CII-O- SHEET

St Io-SHEET

v(~AT[L -TrI tF L-ATFIL PVFF- T--tle--PriTl

bi~s j r-AA I q F Z--shy

1 -N-7-imvNlyIr7VT I t rV]

Trfl-1 (-1 (-L I U --shy

6-vt~ 9vi-rNrr cL-106

0A1i--vel T 1 i7 ) r

A CT-iI T( N L OPC 10 Ct ftN P-- ( c-V4 f C )

~ Wi-s

M- v I shy

6 CCOC) YEVPTo5Al ci I t -77 - Ah-iUAL r-A- r E)( Au cr-TA~rf- 10413-070

(oS~ AV~~ 1()-f11I-3O70 b-totAL o 1 CzAN- _(

IV BUSINESS CARDS OF CONTACTS

6

---- ------

PEFRPHEMA -E

Ing Jozef -URAB

A 97697 N fmmECAIJi3o lo s~Zl I 30obt PEOtR0CICMA ) OUUOVA 8 79 2 8 - IR +poila 976 97 NEMEccIn Ilk tel 0867 926 142 sifj 24 T1C(i 05G722208 l9ihO MtII 0

Tl BRUNOTe( 023977 01 HIr7NO926102 Tel 08671359Fx 08679226tel08674009faO867 927 867

telex0702 3

ii 2

LOVAK AGENCY _F THE ENVIRONMENT

ANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK AGENCY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

BANSKA BYSTRICA SLOVAKIA

rg PeterVozr IND Ing Peter Vozr lroclor Department

Telraj-oampo2

274 01 Bnsk Bystric8

35131Fax (42)(42) 8888 35531

-

Martin FODOR MSc of International Relationships

Ta-ov o 28975 90 Banskh Bystc

- 3

Tel(42)883513133883 Fx(28 35 1 Fax (42)88 3531

RADIAN CORPORATION

300 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 1000

(30640-0045

FAX I(310) 6408940

James E Howes Jr Senior Staff Scientist

Environmnental Services FPepartmcnt

AINW4amp RA IH

00Np lvedBlvd uite K000

r

Doc RNDr Otto TOMECEK CSc

W~nwml 20cI le 12233174

974 01 Ha-L fira 1(m ill431511II

KUUOVA Mi 1)

-

ilV3 deg ce zr a il1h I)olRNrinoTiKClt

Heod ofDIpormfl V1i Segu nl I I 100 lO Td45

a836C3B3RATISLAVA PRIVATEPhO Z8r 906v SLOVAIaA PIowdd dn4

Nobeova 3 4 08degI0V - ~ J i1

I821 06 BRATISLAVA SLOVAI9A

Tel- I 3 0S 4 11)ll il4tlFax 0725 85 58 16 251

Tel 07t24 5 48

MIA Ministerstvo 2ivotn ho prosiredioV6 spolcSnos Sloyenskej republiky

ING IVAN HEJDA Ing Jozef SKULTETY CSc

ovd 24 Tel (42) 07233 017 HIb0k6 2 lel 07492 532BRATISLAVA Fax (42) 07230 794 82 35 Bratislava Fax 07497267R Telex 092347

T MINISTERSTVO HOSPODARSTVA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Mlnlisterstvo 2lvotndho prostredia SR

MINISTRY OF ECONOMY Ministry of Environment of Slovak RepublicOF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

i Ii Dipl - Ing Andrej Soltes Ing Bolhuslav Bezich CSc

rov1 Phone (427) 2998 715 ORATISLAVA Fax (427)tovakla TeL 0792 4 3(427) 23 81235 Bratislava - 07492002Slovakia Fax 0731- 368

-+-S

+++ + + I + + ++++

+++++++ + + +N+ - +

J++i bull +

+ ++++ +--I O++++++++++++ +m27is ++ ++ +++-++]c+ ++i +++-+ +++++++ + ++ 4 ++ ++S+ -V 4

Page 33: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 34: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 35: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 36: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 37: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 38: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 39: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 40: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 41: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 42: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 43: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 44: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 45: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 46: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 47: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 48: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 49: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 50: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 51: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 52: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 53: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 54: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 55: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 56: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 57: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 58: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 59: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 60: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 61: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 62: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 63: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 64: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 65: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 66: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 67: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 68: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 69: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 70: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 71: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 72: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 73: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 74: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 75: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 76: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 77: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 78: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 79: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 80: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 81: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL
Page 82: WORLD ENVIRONMENT CENTER WASTE MINIMIZATION FINAL